Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Clinton, Senator Dole, Senator Graham, Senator Mikulski, Senator Chambliss, Senator Brown, Senator Cardin, Senator Menendez, Senator Salazar, Senator Kennedy, Senator Reed and Senator Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Clinton and the others I have mentioned here, I seek to, as soon as possible, meet the suggestions that have been recommended by the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. I want to express my gratitude to my colleague from New York as well as to others who have joined with us on this effort. This report was submitted to the President by our former colleague, Senator Dole, former Secretary of Health Donna Shalala, and this report is rather extensive on their recommendations on how we might better serve our returning soldiers from the theaters of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The President's Commission on Care for the Returning Wounded recommended:

That Congress should amend the Family and Medical Leave Act

to allow up to 6 months of leave for a family member of a

servicemember who has a combat-related injury and meets the

other eligibility requirements in the law.

I am very proud of many things I have done over the last 25 years in the Senate. None exceeds my sense of pride more than passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Along with Senator Bond, Senator Dan Coats, Senator Specter, Senator Kennedy, and many others, after 7 years, three American Presidents, and two vetoes, we were able to adopt the Family and Medical Leave Act which, since its passage, has assisted more than 60 million Americans in being away from their jobs to be with family members during critical times in their lives without losing that job. These important life situations include the joyous occasion of a birth or adoption and the difficult circumstance of an illness of a child or another family member for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. It has been a remarkable asset to many people.

I suspect there is not a single American family who would not relate to the importance of being able to be with a family member during a time of significant crisis. Obviously, as our wounded warriors coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq are recovering from their injuries, having their families and others with them could be of immeasurable help. Senator Dole and Donna Shalala and other members of the Commission rightly made the recommendation that we should amend the Family and Medical Leave Act to provide for up to 6 months' leave for a family member to be with these individuals without losing their job. That is what we have done with the amendment we are offering to this bill.

Clearly, this bill has nothing to do with family medical leave. My colleagues from Montana and Iowa, have a tremendous responsibility in adopting the legislation before us, of which I am a strong supporter. But, knowing that we only have a short time before we adjourn for more than a month, there is a sense of urgency about providing for these families. I would hope all of us would support this amendment. This is a bipartisan suggestion that will make a difference in the lives of families who are assisting in the recovery of a wounded warrior.

I commend former Senator Dole, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and the distinguished members of the Commission for their thoughtfulness and thorough work on this matter. As the author of the underlying law, I have worked to maintain its protections and extend its protections to assist more employees. I agree with the Commission that FMLA is the best method for providing critical support for our returning heroes who are recovering from their war wounds. I am pleased to be joined, as a principal cosponsor, by Senator Clinton of New York. After more than 7 years of work, as I mentioned earlier, this proposal I made more than 20 years ago became law. It became law within days after January 20, 1993, when President William Jefferson Clinton, as his very first act, signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I remember with great clarity that bright day overlooking the rose garden at the White House, President Clinton signing that bill into law. Pat Schroeder of the other body was the principal author in the House of Representatives and too often gets neglected in talking about the history of the Family and Medical Leave Act. I will be eternally grateful to Pat Schroeder for the tremendous job she did in the other body in seeing to it that this proposal became the law of the land.

The Commission's findings indicate the critical role that family members play in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers:

In their survey, 33 percent of active duty, 22 percent of

reserve component, and 37 percent of retired/separated

servicemembers report that a family member or close friend

relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while

they are in the hospital.

Twenty-one percent of active duty, 15 percent of reserve

component and 24 percent of retired/separated servicemembers

say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as

their caregiver.

More than 3,000 servicemembers have been seriously injured

during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In virtually every

case, a wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister has

received the heart stopping telephone call telling them that

their loved one is sick, or injured, halfway around the

world.

Family or close friends stayed to assist recovery of almost

66 percent of active duty and 54 percent of reserve component

servicemembers.

The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act provides up to 6 months of family and medical leave for spouses, children, parents and next of kin of servicemembers who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently provides for 3 months of unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child providing care for a person with a serious illness. Our servicemembers need more. These are extraordinary circumstances. The point of the Commission and the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act that the Senate recently passed is to take care of our wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat-related injuries. We should support their families in caring for these heroes.

It is essential we do everything possible to support our troops, to allow their loved ones to be with them as they recover from combat- related injuries or illnesses. That is why we should expand and improve benefits for those caring for our servicemembers.

Let me emphasize the major points: You have to have been injured in the theater of combat, Afghanistan or Iraq or in preparation for deployment. Our amendment allows for a parent, spouse, child or next of kin to provide that care-giving role. It would allow them to be with them for up to 6 months without losing their jobs. The leave is without pay. What is the universe we are talking about? It is not the entire Nation, obviously, or anyone who is wearing a uniform who happens to have been injured. You have to have been injured or acquired the illness as a result

of being in the combat theater or when preparing to be deployed.

The amendment is specific as to who could be the caregiver. It is very specific about the amount of time an employee acting as a caregiver would be covered. We have tried to narrow this down in a way. I am grateful to Bob Dole. He called me last Thursday early on and remembered that I had spent such as inordinate amount of time, with the help of Senator Kennedy and others, to adopt the Family and Medical Leave Act so many years ago. Most would agree today it has made a difference in the lives of people. I can't think of any better constituency to serve with expanded family medical leave than our service men and women.

I see my colleague from Georgia. I thank him as well for being a cosponsor of this proposal. Those preparing for deployment obviously would be covered, if they end up being affected as a result of their injuries or illness suffered while in the theater of combat.

Again, as someone who has been a floor manager of many bills over the years, I understand that is not easy to get a particularly difficult bill like this done. I applaud the commitment my colleague from Montana has brought to this legislation. It is my hope that we can achieve the kind of unanimity around this idea of supporting military families, given the fact that the President's Commission is calling for this, our former colleagues calling for it. We have a strong bipartisan group of Senators who believe this is worthwhile to do for this limited group of our fellow citizens who have suffered immeasurably as a result of their contribution. I would hope before we leave here in these next 24 or 48 hours that the very least we could do would be to provide this kind of benefit for them and their families.

I truly appreciate the work of our cosponsors. In particular, their willingness to adopt a provision that would expand the pool of typical caregivers under current law for this specific purpose. Those caregivers are limited to spouses, children, and parents. Our amendment extends the caregiver role to next of kin, a brother, sister or other relative, perhaps.

I gather my colleague from New York, who was very helpful in pulling this together, is on her way to the floor. She might want to be heard on this as well. I was drawing this out while we wait for her arrival.

Mr. President, I rise today in the wake of the terrible tragedy that began unfolding yesterday in the Twin Cities region of Minnesota.

As we all know by now, the bridge carrying Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River near downtown Minneapolis abruptly collapsed during yesterday evening's rush hour. At least 50 vehicles plunged 60 feet into the river. This morning, several people are confirmed dead, dozens of people are injured, and almost two dozen people remain missing. Sadly, first responders expect the death toll to rise as search and rescue missions continue today in earnest.

I would like to extend my thoughts and prayers to Senator Coleman, Senator Klobuchar, and all those directly affected by this tragedy. The people of Connecticut can sympathize with the people of Minnesota at a time like this. Just over 24 years ago, a bridge carrying Interstate 95 over the Mianus River in Greenwich, CT, collapsed in the early afternoon. Four vehicles plunged into the river, three people

died, and three others sustained serious injuries. It remains the worst transportation disaster in my State's history.

Today, the National Transportation Safety Board will begin investigating the bridge collapse in Minnesota. While it is too early to conclude what exactly caused the collapse, we do know that a catastrophic structural failure of some sort occurred. We also know that this truss bridge was constructed in 1967 and--according to an interview on National Public Radio this morning--likely nearing the end of a 50-year operational lifetime.

The tragedy in Minnesota is the most recent example of our national infrastructure crumbling before our very eyes. Indeed, this is not a problem only affecting Minneapolis or Greenwich or--in the case of the recent steam pipe eruption--New York City. It is a problem affecting every State, county, city, and community between San Diego, CA, and Bangor, ME. For too long we have taken our infrastructure systems--our roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, and public housing properties--for granted. For too long we have failed to invest adequately in their long-term sustainability. And today, we find ourselves in a precarious position concerning their future viability--a precarious position that is costing lives, endangering lives, and jeopardizing the high quality of life we have come to enjoy and expect as Americans.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their seminal 2005 Infrastructure Report Card, the current condition of our Nation's major infrastructure systems earns a grade point average of D and jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, 27.1 percent of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The average age of bridges in our country is 40 years. Thirty-three percent of all urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre or fair condition. Data from the Federal Transit Administration shows our mass transit systems are becoming increasingly unable to handle the growing demands of passengers in a safe and efficient manner. A significant percentage of our Nation's drinking water and wastewater systems are obsolete; the average age of these systems ranges in age from 50 years in smaller cities to 100 years in larger cities. Clearly, these statistics are alarming and they are not getting any better.

In their Infrastructure report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a 5-year period to bring our Nation's infrastructure systems to a good condition.

Regrettably, our current infrastructure financing mechanisms, such as formula grants and earmarks, are not equipped by themselves to absorb this cost or meet fully these growing needs. They largely do not address capacity-building infrastructure projects of regional or national significance; they largely do not encourage an appropriate pooling of Federal, State, local and private resources; and they largely do not provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on public resources.

Early yesterday afternoon, on, I joined with my colleague, Senator Hagel, in introducing bipartisan legislation to establish a new method through which the Federal Government can finance more effectively large ``capacity-building'' infrastructure projects of substantial regional or national significance by using public and private capital. I will say to my colleagues that our legislation focuses on the long-term capacity and sustainability of infrastructure facilities just like the bridge that carried Interstate 35W over the Mississippi River.

Fixing our Nation's crumbling infrastructure is an issue that cannot be neglected or deferred any further. This demands our immediate attention and commitment in the Senate. The quality of life in our country hangs in the balance.

Again, I extend my thoughts and prayers to those in Minnesota.

Mr. President, genocide has only one morally tenable answer. This week, the United Nations found that answer: decisive and forceful action to protect the innocent. Tuesday's Security Council resolution put real teeth in the world's effort to stop the Darfur genocide: A paltry contingent of 7,000 African Union peacekeepers will swell with 26,000 more troops in a combined UN/AU force.

The peacekeepers will take command of the region by the end of the year, and their arms will help to shield the people of Darfur from continued murder and rape and displacement.

I applaud this resolution. We all know that it comes 450,000 lives too late. But the UN's action looks positively instantaneous when set against the delay and the equivocation of our own Government. Special Envoy Andrew Natsios assured the world that American action was ``imminent'' 7 months ago. And it was 2 years ago that President Bush declared the crimes in Darfur ``genocide.''

But there is still time for America to act, and a vital role for America to play. The Security Council's force resolution, as valuable as it is, came at a price: To mollify China and several African member states, its provisions for multilateral sanctions on Sudan were significantly softened. We can, and must, fill the gap with unilateral sanctions of our own.

Multilateral force combined with American sanctions would show the international system working at its best. The world community has agreed to act against genocide; now, the United States can work in the spirit of that resolution and do its own part to bring the suffering to an end. Our economic muscle can be a potent weapon.

Three sanctions bills are before the Senate. Two S. 831--the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007, and S. 1563, the Sudan Disclosure and Enforcement Act of 2007--have been authored by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin. From the very start, his voice has been the strongest in the Senate on the Darfur genocide, and his tremendous leadership stands in stark contrast to this administration.

A third sanctions bill--H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007--has been authored by Representative Barbara Lee, whose leadership ranks with Senator Durbin's. I have asked the majority leader to expedite consideration of all of these bills.

I would like to focus for a moment on Representative Lee's bill. It aims to punish the bloodstained Government of Sudan by assisting divestment from companies that--knowingly or not--have helped to fund the genocide. H.R. 180 requires the Department of the Treasury to develop a list of companies investing in specific sectors of the Sudanese economy: power production, mineral extraction, oil-related industries, and military equipment industries.

Before being put on the list, companies are given 30 days to either rebut the designation or to say that they will be suspending such activities within a year. The bill also removes specific legal barriers to enable mutual fund and corporate pension fund managers to cut ties with these listed companies.

And it allows States and localities to divest their public pension funds from those companies whose financial operations help support the genocidal practices of the Sudanese Government.

In ultimately leading to the withdrawal of funds from the Sudanese military machine, the bill does valuable work. But I am concerned that it entrusts the compilation of the list of companies to the wrong agency, Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control. OFAC is an enforcement agency, and such investigation is not in its mission.

I believe the job is better entrusted to an interagency task force combining

the varied strengths of the Departments of Treasury, State, and Energy, along with the SEC. This combined approach will mean that our efforts toward divestment are as fair, effective, targeted, and transparent as they can be. So I have proposed amending the divestment bill to that effect; a second amendment authorizes $2 million to make this divestment task force a reality.

But whatever form they take, sanctions need to pass now. As the UN/AU force stabilizes Darfur, we must do our utmost to choke off the money that has oiled the machinery of slaughter. To those of my colleagues who are standing in the way of swift action, I ask:

What more do you need to see?

What more do we need to prove?

What more could it possibly take to move you?

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 180, as amended, and the two other strong Senate bills.

Mr. President, 14 years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the years since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken advantage of its provisions to care for a sick love one, or recover from illness themselves, or welcome a new baby into the family. If ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries, but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones.

That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, a bill I am proud to have authored along with Senator Clinton. The FMLA was the very first bill that President Clinton signed into law, and I am grateful that his wife, Senator Clinton, continues to support the principles that I have been fighting for over 20 years. Now, I am also pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this new legislation today.

Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort as well, through their thoughtfulness and work on the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.

It is unsurprising that the commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring: according to the commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help in their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. To quote from the commission's moving report:

In virtually every case [of a wounded servicemember], a

wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister has received the

heart-stopping telephone call telling them that their loved

one is sick or injured, halfway around the world.

These loved ones bear a burden almost as sharp as the wound itself. The very least we can give them is the assurance that their jobs will be there when they return.

It is for these reasons that the commission recommend that the FMLA be expanded to provide family members of combat-injured servicemembers up to 6 months of leave to care for their loved ones.

The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act does just that. FMLA currently allows 3 months of unpaid leave. Given the severity of their injuries, and our debt of gratitude, our servicemembers need more.

For the first time, this bill offers FMLA leave not just to parents, spouses, and children, but to next-of-kin, including siblings. Families, not the government, should decide for themselves who takes on the work of caring for their injured loved ones. This bill recognizes that fact, and it is a major accomplishment.

Our troops are laying their bodies on the line for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, every day. Our full debt to them is unpayable. But perhaps the best thing we can do for them is to get out of the way, to make it possible for the love of family to heal their wounds. With their jobs protected, more family members will be able to do just that. What this

bill does, then, is break down a barrier, between our troops and the care they need the most.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, 14 years ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the years since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken advantage of its provisions to care for a sick love one, or recover from illness themselves, or welcome a new baby into the family. If ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries, but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones.

That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act, a bill I am proud to have authored along with Senator Clinton. The FMLA was the very first bill that President Clinton signed into law, and I am grateful that his wife, Senator Clinton, continues to support the principles that I have been fighting for over 20 years. Now, I am also pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this new legislation today.

Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort as well, through their thoughtfulness and work on the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.

It is unsurprising that the commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring: according to the commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help in their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. To quote from the commission's moving report:

In virtually every case [of a wounded servicemember], a

wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister has received the

heart-stopping telephone call telling them that their loved

one is sick or injured, halfway around the world.

These loved ones bear a burden almost as sharp as the wound itself. The very least we can give them is the assurance that their jobs will be there when they return.

It is for these reasons that the commission recommend that the FMLA be expanded to provide family members of combat-injured servicemembers up to 6 months of leave to care for their loved ones.

The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act does just that. FMLA currently allows 3 months of unpaid leave. Given the severity of their injuries, and our debt of gratitude, our servicemembers need more.

For the first time, this bill offers FMLA leave not just to parents, spouses, and children, but to next-of-kin, including siblings. Families, not the government, should decide for themselves who takes on the work of caring for their injured loved ones. This bill recognizes that fact, and it is a major accomplishment.

Our troops are laying their bodies on the line for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, every day. Our full debt to them is unpayable. But perhaps the best thing we can do for them is to get out of the way, to make it possible for the love of family to heal their wounds. With their jobs protected, more family members will be able to do just that. What this

bill does, then, is break down a barrier, between our troops and the care they need the most.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel. The bill addresses an issue of paramount importance to our country and its quality of life: the deteriorating condition of our infrastructure systems.

I do not believe there is one person present in this chamber, funding myself, who has not taken our Nation's infrastructure systems for granted at some point. Indeed, our roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, and public housing properties, collectively comprise the overlooked but critically important adhesive that holds our society together. These systems allow for the continuous passage of people and goods across the country; they allow people to communicate with each other here and around the world; they allow business and Government to function; and they allow goods to be consumed and services to be rendered. All in all, our infrastructure systems are directly responsible for providing the high quality of life that we Americans have come to enjoy in a free society.

Yet, it is precisely because we have taken our infrastructure systems for granted that we find ourselves in a precarious position today concerning their future viability. One does not have to look far to comprehend the extensive problems plaguing many of our infrastructure systems and facilities.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their seminal 2005 Infrastructure Report Card, the current condition of our Nation's major infrastructure systems earns a grade point average of D and jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, 33 percent of all urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre or fair condition. 27.1 percent of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Data from the Federal Transit Administration shows our mass transit systems are becoming increasingly unable to handle the growing demands passengers in a safe and efficient manner. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the average traveler is delayed 51.5 hours annually due to traffic and infrastructure-related congestion in the Nation's

20 largest metropolitan areas. The delays range from 93 hours in Los Angeles to 14 hours in Pittsburgh. Combined, these delays waste 1.78 billion gallons of fuel each year and waste almost $50.3 billion in congestion costs. Furthermore, the average delay in these metropolitan areas has increased by almost 35.3 hours since 1982.

A significant percentage of our Nation's drinking water and wastewater systems are obsolete; the average age of these systems range in age from 50 years in smaller cities to 100 years in larger cities. Finally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reports there are 1.2 million units of public housing with critical capital needs totaling $18 billion. Clearly, these statistics are alarming and they are not getting any better.

In their Infrastructure Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a 5-year period to bring our Nation's infrastructure systems to a good condition.

Regrettably, our current infrastructure financing mechanisms, such as formula grants and earmarks, are not equipped by themselves to absorb this cost or meet fully these growing needs. They largely do not address capacity-building infrastructure projects of regional or national significance; they largely do not encourage an appropriate pooling of Federal, State, local and private resources; and they largely do not provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on public resources.

This is why I rise with my colleague from Nebraska today. We are introducing the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007, a bipartisan measure that addresses the critical needs of our Nation's major infrastructure systems. Our legislation establishes a new method through which the Federal Government can finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional or national significance more effectively with public and private capital.

Our legislation establishes the National Infrastructure Bank, which, as an independent entity of the Government, is tasked with evaluating and financing capacity-building infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national significance. Infrastructure projects that come under the bank's consideration are publicly-owned mass transit systems, housing properties, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and wastewater systems.

Modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the bank is led by a 5 member Board of Directors, each whom are appointed by the Prsident and confirmed by the Senate. The bank's board has flexibility to develop an organization of professional civil service staff to carry out the bank's authorized activities. An Inspector General oversees the bank's daily operations and reports on those operations to Congress.

Infrastructure projects with a potential Federal investment of at least $75 million are brought to the bank's attention by a project sponsor, State, locality, tribe, infrastructure agency, e.g. transit agency, a consortium of these entities. To determine a level of Federal investment, the bank uses a sliding-scale method that incorporates conditions such as the type of infrastructure system or systems, project location, project cost, current and projected usage, non- Federal revenue, regional or national significance, promotion of economic growth and community development, reduction in traffic congestion, environmental benefits, land use policies that promote smart growth, and mobility improvements.

Once a level of investment is determined for a project, the bank develops a financing package with full faith and credit from the government. The financing package could include direct subsidies, direct loan guarantees, long-term tax-credit general purpose bonds, and long-term tax-credit infrastructure project specific bonds. The initial ceiling to issue bonds is $60 billion.

The bank is tasked to report annually to Congress on the projects it reviews and finances. A public database is created to catalog what projects were funded and what financing packages were provided. The bank is also tasked to report every 3 years on the economic efficacy and transparency of all current Federal infrastructure financing methods, and how those methods could be improved. After 5 years, the Government Accountability Office would be tasked with evaluating the bank's operations and efficacy.

It is important to note that our legislation does not displace or supplant any existing infrastructure finance mechanisms, such as formula grants and earmarks. Instead, the bank targets large-scale projects that are currently underserved by these existing financing mechanisms.

I would like to take a moment to thank the Centers for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS, and the work undertaken by Dr. John Hamre in infrastucture finance. CSIS, Ambassador Felix Rohatyn, and former Senator Warren Rudman have provided valuable assistance and support in the development of our legislation.

I would also like to thank the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Construction Alliance for their support of our bill.

It is my intent to take up this legislation in the Banking Committee after the August recess. This is an issue that cannot be neglected or deferred any further. Restoring our Nation's infrastructure demands our immediate attention and commitment in the Senate. The quality of life in our country hangs in the balance.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I wish to begin my comments by thanking our colleague from Massachusetts once again for giving heart to an argument that sometimes gets lost in statistics and numbers.

As all of us know, every one of us has watched either fellow Members or others--our staffs or constituents--who have gone through the dreaded situation of watching a child in need of health care. We know how fortunate we are to be Members of Congress, as we receive a tremendous amount of support for health care services. The fact that we are living in a day and age in the 21st century when so many of our children, growing numbers in our society, are without any kind of health care coverage at all. It is shameful, to put it mildly. I commend the distinguished Senator from Montana, the chair of the Finance Committee, and once again the Senator from Massachusetts for his tremendous support of this effort.

I wish to offer an amendment at the appropriate time. As many of my colleagues know, over a period of 7 years, three Presidents, and two Presidential vetoes, I worked toward passage of the Family Medical Leave Act. It finally became law in 1993. Today, more than 50 million Americans have been able to take advantage of the protections of that law. It is related to the subject matter of the bill at hand, a little bit off center, but it's about caring for our families.

Last week, Senator Dole along with Donna Shalala and others, offered recommendations from the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. They urged Congress to draft legislation to allow up to 6 months of family and medical leave for family members of troops who have sustained combat-related injuries and meet the other eligibility requirements of the law. We believe this is a worthwhile proposal, so I introduced the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act last week with several of my colleagues.

I am very grateful to Senator Dole, a former colleague of ours, and the entire Commission for their thoughtful work on this crucial issue.

For 20 years, we have worked on legislation to extend family and medical leave to families in this country. So I hope that at the appropriate time, my amendment on this matter will be considered and unanimously adopted. There may be an argument on germaneness, but we can't wait to help the men and women who are injured in service to our country. I can't think of a more appropriate step for us to take than to allow these veterans who are recovering from their wounds to have a loved one with them during that period of recovery.

I wanted to lay out for my colleagues the value of this amendment, how valuable the protections of family and medical leave have been for families. In fact, we have introduced legislation to provide paid family and medical leave. I won't be offering that at this juncture, but now offer an extended unpaid leave program. My amendment would simply extend the period of job protection for up to six months for those who care for our returning heroes as they recover from their injuries. The reasons are obvious.

In the Wounded Warriors Commission survey, 33 percent of Active-Duty and 22 percent of Reserve components and 37 percent of retired/ separated servicemembers report that family members or close friends relocated for extended periods of time to be with them while they were in the hospital. Twenty-one percent of Active-Duty, 15 percent of Reserve components, and 24 percent of retired/separated servicemembers say friends or family gave up a job to be with them or act as their caregiver.

It seems to me they shouldn't have to give up a job in order to be with a recuperating servicemember coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan. The Commission's findings indicate the critical role that family and friends play in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. Currently FMLA provides for 3 months of job-protected unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child acting as a caregiver for a person with a serious illness. The report indicates that many servicemembers rely on other family members or friends to care for them. My amendment allows these other caregivers--siblings, cousins, friends or significant others to take leave for up to six months, when our returning heroes need them the most, without fear of losing their jobs. My amendment goes beyond some other proposals in other ways as well. It covers caregivers staying with the recovering servicemember in a military hospital as well as those providing care at home. This proposal would apply to all individuals currently covered by FMLA, including federal civil servants, who might find themselves caring for a wounded warrior.

My amendment only addresses servicemembers with combat-related injuries. This is a narrow universe of individuals who experience extraordinary circumstances. Taking care of our soldiers, sailors, airman and Marines returning from Iraq and Afghanistan was the point of the Commission and the Wounded Warriors Act that we recently passed. I can't think of anything more important that we could do this week before August break than to pass a proposal that would provide these service men and women the opportunity to have a loved one with them as they recover.

I send my amendment to the desk. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his tireless work, the Senator from Montana, of course, and the Senator from Iowa, who have worked hard on children's issues, and ask them to consider this amendment at the appropriate time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the ongoing genocide in Darfur. As my colleagues know, the United Nations Security Council is currently hammering out the final text of a new resolution related to the expanded United Nations African Union hybrid force to protect civilians who have been victims of genocide in Darfur. This resolution represents the best hope for the international community to finally come together to put an end to the violence in that country.

This new U.N. resolution reportedly calls for a large increase in military and police personnel to be deployed to Darfur. It calls on member states to make commitments to contribute troops to the hybrid force, and for this bolstered hybrid force UNAMID to take command of the region by the end of the year. Importantly, it also calls on the Sudanese Government and all rebel groups to enter into peace negotiations to reach a political settlement which will ultimately end the conflict in Darfur.

If these reports are accurate, then we may be one step closer to ending the violence in Darfur. But in order to actually stop the violence, we must ensure that the hybrid force is large enough to effectively carry out its mission, and deployed quickly to stop the violence immediately. These increased forces are desperately needed to replace the currently under-funded and under- equipped paltry AU force of 7,000 soldiers presently in Darfur.

We simply cannot wait any longer to protect the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians whose villages have been burned, who have been driven into refugee camps, and who have been raped and murdered.

I welcome the calls of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy for the United Nations to quickly adopt this new draft resolution, and I appreciate the leadership they have demonstrated in personally committing to ensure that the peace process moves forward, once the U.N. resolution has passed. Prime Minister Brown recently declared that ``this is one of the great humanitarian disasters of our generation. It is incumbent on the whole world to act.'' I wholeheartedly agree and I urge President Bush to join with Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy in personally committing to ending the conflict in Darfur.

Recent reports have also indicated that the text of the resolution relating to implementing multilateral sanctions has been softened due to the objections of some African member states, as well as China.

While I strongly believe that robust targeted sanctions should be implemented against members of rebel groups and the Sudanese Government, that we should curb the Sudanese Government's access to oil revenues, increase penalties on private companies operating in Sudan, and allow for the divestment of funds in Sudan, the sad truth is that what is most needed now from the international community is a legitimate U.N. mandate for a strengthened hybrid peacekeeping force.

But there is no reason why the United States can't move forward to implement unilateral sanctions against Sudan, even if the international community and the Bush administration refuse to do so. As chairman of the Banking Committee I have asked the majority leader to expedite Senate consideration and passage of S.831, The Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007. The majority leader was prepared to do so, but the minority objected. I have also asked that the majority leader to hold H.R. 180, the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, at the desk and attempt to pass this bill prior to the August recess. I am also planning to ask the majority leader to expedite consideration of S. 1563, the Sudan Disclosure and Enforcement Act of 2007. These three bills represent a good step towards applying targeted economic pressure against the Sudanese Government.

The implementation of robust and targeted sanctions is long overdue. In fact, the time to implement the sanctions was 4 years ago, and it should have been among the first components of the administration's Plan A, instead of the last resort of its Plan B--a plan which it has still failed to implement, despite Special Envoy Andrew Natsios's assurances over 7 months ago, back in January of 2007, that action was imminent.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador recently asserted that the text of the new U.N. Security Council resolution is ``hostile'' and full of ``insinuations.'' He further declared that the language is ``ugly'' and ``awful.'' Ugly and awful? Ugly and awful is the murder of 450,000 people in Darfur and the displacement of 2.5 million civilians. Ugly and awful is the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, after his recent visit to Darfur, declaring ``that most of Darfur is now secure and enjoying real peace. People are living normal lives,'' he said. Ugly and awful is the United States and the international community waiting one day longer to protect these innocent civilians.

The time for action is now. We must not allow the Sudanese Government to

engage in anymore prevarication regarding its acceptance of a hybrid peacekeeping force. And we must ensure that this new U.N. Security Council resolution marks the beginning of the end of genocide in Darfur, by mandating the immediate deployment of a robust multinational peacekeeping force.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation reported by the conference, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/ 11 Commission Act of 2007. I was proud to serve on this very important conference, and while I may not agree with every part of the act, I believe that on balance it is a very important piece of legislation that will serve to make our Nation more secure and help protect Americans of all walks of life. Over 5 years after the tragic events of 9/11 and almost 2 years since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we continue to hear from Governors, county executives, mayors, first responders, health professionals, and emergency preparedness officials that our country as a whole remains unprepared for another manmade or natural disaster. We have heard the argument, which I support, that Congress needs to do more to support regional and local efforts to protect Americans. Overall, I believe this conference report takes a critical step forward in making America more secure.

I am going to focus on the titles of this legislation dealing with transportation security, with which I was deeply involved throughout this process as chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over public transportation.

Title XIV of this bill creates a new grant program to improve the security of public transportation and its 14 million daily passengers. Safe and secure transit systems are essential to the well-being of our citizens and the health of our economy. The Banking Committee examined the state of transit security in our very first hearing of the 110th Congress, which was my first hearing as chairman. At that hearing, the committee heard from some very compelling witnesses, including the directors of the London and Madrid transit systems. It is not all that common that we invite witnesses who are not U.S. citizens to come and participate in congressional hearings. But given the tragedies in Madrid and London, we thought it would be worthwhile to have those who manage the transit operations in those two cities come and share with us information about their experiences. I think their testimony was very helpful in demonstrating the importance of this issue and galvanizing the attention of the Congress to address this issue in the legislation before us.

We learned in those hearings that transit attacks have unfortunately been a major component of terrorist activities over the last several decades. It is no secret that worldwide, terrorists have favored public transit as a target. In the decade leading up to 2000, 42 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide targeted rail systems or buses, according to a study done by the Brookings Institution. In 2005 they attacked, as I mentioned, London's rail and bus system, killing 52 riders and injuring almost 700 more in what has been called London's bloodiest peacetime attack. In 2004, they attacked Madrid's metro system, killing 192 people and leaving 1,500 people injured.

Transit is frequently targeted because it is tremendously important to any nation's economy. Securing our transit systems and our transportation networks generally is a difficult challenge under any circumstances. We must do all that we can to meet that challenge. Beyond the obvious implications of physically protecting our citizens, safe transit systems can help to maintain public confidence, encouraging transit use, reducing pollution, and preventing our cities from being mired in gridlock.

The first piece of legislation that the Banking Committee marked up after I became chairman addressed with transit security. That legislation, reported out of the committee as S. 763, was included in the Senate version of the 9/11 bill. I am extremely pleased that it is included in the conference report which the Senate is considering. Similar to the bill that was reported by the Banking Committee, the conference report provides $3.5 billion in grants directly to transit agencies for security equipment, evacuation drills, and worker training--on which several witnesses, particularly from Madrid and London, testified would be the most important investment we could make. Indeed, the conference report requires worker training for all transit systems that receive security grants. The importance of worker training can scarcely be overstated. Transit workers are the first line of defense against an attack and the first to respond in the event of an attack. Mr. O'Toole, the director of London's transit system, said it well: ``You have to invest in your staff and rely on them. You have to invest in technology, but don't rely on it.''

The conference report also authorizes funds for the research and development of security technologies and authorizes

funding for the Information Sharing Analysis Center, ISAC, a valuable tool that provides transit agencies timely information on active threats against their systems. At the Banking Committee hearing we heard testimony from the American Public Transportation Association in strong support of the ISAC, and I am very pleased that the conference report authorizes this important center.

The conference report follows the Banking Committee's bill in allocating grants directly to transit systems on the basis of risk. The legislation makes clear that the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for making these critical decisions and allocating the grants among the Nation's 6,000 public transit agencies. The report does leave open the important decision of which agency, the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Transportation, should actually distribute these grants and audit recipients' compliance with important provisions of transit law, including labor protections. The legislation requires the Secretaries of these 2 Departments to make this decision on the basis of which Department can distribute grants in the most effective and efficient manner. It is my opinion that at this moment, and at least for the next few years, the Department of Transportation is the agency that can best meet these criteria. DOT already has an efficient and effective grant distribution system in place that directly reaches our Nation's transit systems. The Federal Transit Administration is well aware of the various provisions of transit law that the recipients of security grants will be required to comply with and will therefore be able to monitor for compliance effectively. These transit security grants must go out to agencies quickly, as we face an urgent threat. It is my hope that the Secretaries will make a decision based on sound policy to best protect the American public and not with an eye toward jurisdiction or turf.

Over the years we have invested heavily in aviation security. In fact, we have invested about $7.50 per aviation passenger per trip. About 1.8 million people travel using the aviation system daily in this country. Fourteen million people use mass transit systems every workday. We have invested about $380 million in the security of mass transit systems. That is about one penny per passenger per trip.

I am not suggesting, nor do we require, that there be an equilibrium between the security investment in aviation and mass transit systems. I am simply suggesting that the Federal government can and should do more to secure our transit systems. To that end, the conference report provides an authorization of $3.5 billion for transit security. We believe with this additional authorization, and we hope an appropriate appropriation from the responsible committees, that we will be able to provide some additional security for this critically important component of our economy.

Again, I am grateful to the members of the conference committee for their support of this effort. I also want to thank my colleague and ranking member on the Banking Committee, Senator Shelby, who has been a true champion for transit security for many years. This National Transit Systems Security Act of 2007 would never have reached this stage without Senator Shelby's work. This was truly a bipartisan product, and I want to thank Senator Shelby and our colleagues on the Banking Committee, including the former chairmen of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, Senators Reed and Allard, who have also made very valuable contributions to this bill over the many years that we have been working to improve transit security.

I also want to make a few comments about other items that are included in this conference report. First, as chairman of the Banking Committee, I recognize the preparedness requirements that the Federal financial regulators have imposed on institutions under their jurisdiction and which those institutions have observed. I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues Senators Lieberman and Collins on title IX to clarify that the private sector preparedness certification is voluntary and should not be construed as a requirement to replace any preparedness, emergency response, or business continuity standards, requirements, or best practices established under any other provision of Federal law, or by any sector-specific agency.

The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs also exercises jurisdiction over the preparedness of American industry to supply our Government in times of defense and homeland security emergencies. Key to this effort is ensuring that our Nation's critical infrastructure operates uninterrupted and unhindered by natural or manmade disasters. Title X of this bill will enable the Department of Homeland Security to assess our vulnerabilities and hopefully work with other agencies to build up defenses for our critical infrastructure. In one specific provision, we built off of the Banking Committee's work 4 years ago when we reauthorized the Defense Production Act, DPA. In 2003, we emphasized the importance of the DPA's authorities in protecting our critical infrastructure. Today, under the conference agreement, we will require the Homeland Security Department, in coordination with the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, Defense, and Energy, to explain how it is implementing these 2003 DPA requirements. With the DPA's authorities expiring in September 2008, this report may prove helpful for our Committee's eventual markup of the reauthorization and modernization of the DPA.

Finally, I want to express my disappointment that the conference report includes an immunity provision that was added to the report despite not being contained in either the Senate bill or the House bill that was sent to conference. I note that this provision was not supported by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over this matter, and I believe it should have been dealt with in a very different manner. While I share the belief that our citizens are the first line of defense against terrorism and that they need to be encouraged to report legitimate suspicious behavior, we need to be very careful whenever we grant blanket immunity and even more careful when we pass legislation granting this immunity retroactively.

To conclude, Mr. President, I am pleased to recommend this conference report to my colleagues, as I believe that it will serve us well in our efforts to make Americans more secure.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007. This bill will implement one of the key recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. First of all, I commend former Senator Bob Dole, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and the distinguished members of the Commission for their thoughtfulness and thorough work on this critically important matter.

More than 20 years ago, I began the effort to bring job protection to hard-working Americans so they wouldn't have to choose between the family they love and the job they need. This effort, after more than seven years, three presidents, and two vetoes, eventually led to the enactment of the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave for eligible employees to care for a newborn or adopted child, their own serious illness or that of a loved one. Since its passage, I have worked to expand this act to cover more workers and to provide for wage replacement, so that more employees can afford to take leave when necessary.

Mr. President, it is essential that we do everything possible to support our troops and to allow their loved ones to be with them as they recover from a combat-related injury or illness. That is why we must expand and improve leave benefits to those caring for our injured or ill servicemembers. The bill I introduce today provides up to 6 months of FMLA leave for primary caregivers of servicemembers who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently provides for 3 months of unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child acting as a caregiver for a person with a serious illness. However, some of those injured in service to our country rely on other family members or friends to care for them as they recover. This legislation allows these other primary caregivers, such as siblings, cousins, friends or significant others to take leave from their employment when our returning heroes need them most.

Our troops are giving their all on the battlefield. The very least our Government owes them is its total support for their family and medical needs. While FMLA has provided critical support to more than 50 million American families, I will not rest until we are able to modernize this statute to cover our wounded warriors. Plain and simple, the loved ones of these brave men and women should be allowed to care for them without the fear of losing their job.

I am pleased that I am joined today by Senators Ben Nelson, Kennedy, Reed and Lieberman in introducing the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007 and ask for the support of all my colleagues for this critically important effort to care for our returning wounded warriors and their loved ones.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007. This bill will implement one of the key recommendations of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. First of all, I commend former Senator Bob Dole, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and the distinguished members of the Commission for their thoughtfulness and thorough work on this critically important matter.

More than 20 years ago, I began the effort to bring job protection to hard-working Americans so they wouldn't have to choose between the family they love and the job they need. This effort, after more than seven years, three presidents, and two vetoes, eventually led to the enactment of the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave for eligible employees to care for a newborn or adopted child, their own serious illness or that of a loved one. Since its passage, I have worked to expand this act to cover more workers and to provide for wage replacement, so that more employees can afford to take leave when necessary.

Mr. President, it is essential that we do everything possible to support our troops and to allow their loved ones to be with them as they recover from a combat-related injury or illness. That is why we must expand and improve leave benefits to those caring for our injured or ill servicemembers. The bill I introduce today provides up to 6 months of FMLA leave for primary caregivers of servicemembers who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently provides for 3 months of unpaid leave to a spouse, parent or child acting as a caregiver for a person with a serious illness. However, some of those injured in service to our country rely on other family members or friends to care for them as they recover. This legislation allows these other primary caregivers, such as siblings, cousins, friends or significant others to take leave from their employment when our returning heroes need them most.

Our troops are giving their all on the battlefield. The very least our Government owes them is its total support for their family and medical needs. While FMLA has provided critical support to more than 50 million American families, I will not rest until we are able to modernize this statute to cover our wounded warriors. Plain and simple, the loved ones of these brave men and women should be allowed to care for them without the fear of losing their job.

I am pleased that I am joined today by Senators Ben Nelson, Kennedy, Reed and Lieberman in introducing the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act of 2007 and ask for the support of all my colleagues for this critically important effort to care for our returning wounded warriors and their loved ones.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be yielded time off the bill to speak.

Madam President, I begin by commending our leading sponsors and managers of this legislation, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi, for the leadership they provided in working on this important legislation. It is especially important to most American families, because all of us now are beginning to appreciate how expensive it is to receive a higher education--tragically, I point out--and what a higher education can mean to more and more Americans--the quality of life, individual success of our citizenry, but also the collective health of our country as well when we have a well-educated population.

I have often quoted the statistic made by Thomas Jefferson more than 200 years ago that:

Any nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects

what never was and never can be.

Certainly as we enter this 21st century of global competitiveness, the children of my State are not just competing with the children of Missouri, the home State of the Presiding Officer, but also competing, obviously, with children from all over the world, from Beijing, Johannesburg, Moscow, New Delhi--everywhere. This is going to be a very different world for children growing up in the 21st century. The extent we provide them with the tools and preparation necessary to compete and succeed under these circumstances--very different from what most of us have grown up with--is going to be extremely important, and the work this body does in the coming days is extremely important.

I believe the National Science Foundation reported that the abrupt changes that will come in this country will be staggering if we don't do a better job in preparing ourselves for the educational challenges that we will face in the 21st century. The cost of a college education obviously is a major factor here. It is vital for children and families and for America's long-term success. According to recent statistics, to put it in graphic terms, a person with a higher education, a college education, their earning power jumps by almost $1 million. Not that this ought to be the sole criterion whether someone gets a higher education, but the earning power of an individual is substantially enhanced. There are other, more important issues than earning power, but certainly the issues of individuals being able to do better, provide for the long-term financial security of themselves and families is critically important. But there are issues that go beyond how much money you make that have to do with an education. We have to support the institution we embrace as Americans, as Jefferson was suggesting back in the beginning of the 19th century. I would argue even more importantly, the subtleties of a Bill of Rights will depend upon a population that embraces them, understands them, is willing to do everything they can to protect them so future generations will enjoy the benefits of our form of governance as well.

Today's tuition levels are one of the great barriers to people going on to higher education. I was stunned to learn, even in the last 2 months, the number of people in our country who completed high school, were accepted

for higher education and did not go because of financial barriers. I am told the numbers hover around 400,000 young people in this country. That is a deeply troubling statistic. If we have as many as 400,000 people in our country who cannot afford to go on to higher education despite having done everything else well, then America truly will be paying a price in no time.

The average cost of attending a public university is roughly $13,000. The average cost of attending a private university stands at $30,000. That is the average. I know people here can cite numbers and statistics that make that $13,000 on average seem small and the $30,000 on average per annum seem small.

But just think of that, $30,000, for one individual to attend 1 year of higher education; even at a public institution, it costs around $13,000. Then consider where the average family is in their income, and whether they have more than one child and other obligations, obviously, as they try to prepare for their own long-term financial security; not worry about health care costs, including rising premium costs, if they have health insurance. Additionally, the mortgage payments on their home with adjustable rate mortgages, all of those factors crowding in as families try to do everything possible to see to it that their children can have the benefit of a higher education.

How many families have planned and spent years and years watching their children mature and grow, with the full expectation of all the admonitions: Work hard, do your homework, get involved in things, learn as much as you can, pay attention, and all of that. Then, arriving at the moment, where they do everything they are supposed to have done, they say now we want to send you on to college, but we cannot afford to do so. Or the loans are so expensive that you will be left with such debt that the benefits of getting a higher education seem daunting, to put it mildly.

So imagine how daunting these levels are to a single parent or a family struggling on a minimum wage, for instance. You can even forget about it at minimum wage. Clearly, we must do more to ensure that skyrocketing tuition does not put out of reach the dream and the ability of obtaining a higher education.

That is why this bill is so important, maybe one of the most important bills. We have had long debates on immigration, long debates on Iraq, all very important issues. But the long-term effects of what we do on this legislation may have more to do with the well-being of our country than almost anything else in the coming days and weeks.

This bill will help us move toward a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just high-blown rhetoric. We hear too often in public speeches about doing something to make a difference in the lives of working families. There are a number of key provisions in this bill which accomplish those goals. For example, the bill caps the borrower's monthly loan payments at 15 percent of discretionary income. While payments are still costly at 15 percent, this is a major achievement.

This cap, if you will, will make repayment more manageable and borrowers will be less likely to default on their loans, which ought to be important for the lending institutions.

This bill will also increase the auto zero threshold, as they call it, to allow additional low-income families to automatically claim zero expected family contributions when filling out financial aid forms. This change will allow students of these families to be eligible for increased Pell grants.

Too often what we have done with the Pell grants is consider these other factors, such as expected family contribution. It drives a student out of the Pell grant qualifications when, frankly, what the family has to contribute is so little that it would amount to almost nothing, and yet would disqualify them from receiving the Pell grant funding they need.

Furthermore, we have raised the cap on economic hardship deferments from 3 years to 6 years to ensure that students are not finally crushed in times of financial difficulty.

We have also strengthened our commitment to those who provide high- quality childcare services as well as all other public service employees by offering them further opportunities for loan forgiveness.

One of the items contained in this bill that I am most happy about is the increase in the Pell grant. I have been involved in this for many years. It has been terribly frustrating over the last 6, 7, 8 years to watch how little this administration is willing to support even modest increases to the Pell Grant Program in our country.

The Pell grant in this bill will be raised to $5,100, in 2008 and up to $5,400 by the year 2012. Frankly, that is paltry. Candidly, I wish it were much higher, especially considering what a Pell grant used to provide only a few short years ago toward the cost of a public education. The grant used to cover 80 percent of the average tuition, fees, room and board at a public university.

Today the Pell grant covers 29 percent. So even with a Pell grant you are still looking at having to come up with roughly 70 percent of the additional costs of that higher education when you take all of these factors together.

As a result, low- to middle-income students who attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever-increasing percentage of loans, including private loans. This increase in the debt burden of students, in some cases, keeps them from going to college at all. As I mentioned the numbers earlier, somewhere close to 400,000 students are not going on to higher education because of financial burdens.

This year alone, it is estimated that 400,000 high school graduates who are prepared and ready to go to a 4-year college will be unable to go because their families cannot afford it. While I continue to advocate for even greater increases in the Pell grant, I commend my colleagues for taking the first steps in getting us back to the 80- percent tuition coverage we achieved in 1975. I am pleased that Senators Kennedy and Enzi are doing that.

Until we reach the goal of 80 percent of students' tuition being covered by Pell grants and other forms of Federal aid, many students will be forced to turn to private and direct consumer and student loans, which are also not guaranteed by the Federal Government and are not subject to loan limits.

In fact, the market for private student loans has grown significantly and is now the fastest growing segment of the $85 billion student loan industry, as traditional sources of student aid have failed to keep pace, with both the tremendous demand and the cost of higher education.

The underwriting for private loans is similar to that used for other forms of consumer credit. This means student borrowers, who usually have little or no credit history, poor credit scores, or no parental cosigner, or whose parents have poor credit histories, will typically pay higher rates than those with good credit histories and those with parental consigners with good credit.

In many regards, this model runs counter to the longstanding Federal purpose of student aid, which is targeting low-cost financial assistance to students with the greatest needs and those from the humblest of backgrounds, one of the great success stories of our country.

We have heard the anecdote repeated hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of times of what a difference a college education has made throughout history. We have tried desperately to make sure that no one in this country would be deprived of the opportunity of a higher education because they or their family lacked the financial resources to do it.

If you had the drive, the ambition, the determination to get a higher education, America stood ready to see to it that this pathway was available to you. It has only been in the last few years that we have allowed a situation to develop where too often those young people and those families are being told: Because you are in those circumstances, you are not going to be able to get that higher education that you need and you deserve.

As I mentioned a moment ago, 400,000 young people who will not go on to 4-year colleges, at a time when we enter a global marketplace, where we need to have the best prepared generation America has ever produced, we seem to be heading in the wrong direction.

This bill reverses that trend. Again, I commend my colleagues, Senator Kennedy particularly, and Senator Enzi,

for their work in reversing this trend line. I hope it is the beginning of several steps that we take in the coming years.

I am further alarmed by reports uncovered by the Congressional and State investigators which detail aggressive and questionable private loan marketing practices and other unseemly industry practices, ranging from conflicts of interest to kickback schemes to consumer fraud.

I want to particularly commend Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general of the State of New York, who has taken a leadership role in this nationally, in uncovering some of these schemes and kickbacks and other financial activities that have put these loans at even higher costs to students.

I was pleased we had him testify before the Banking Committee only a few weeks ago to talk about this and the steps that we will be taking to try to correct some of those matters at the appropriate time.

I also was troubled by issues uncovered at a hearing that I just mentioned in the Senate Banking Committee that suggests some lenders may be using as part of their loan underwriting criteria subjective rankings of academic institutions, and demographic information about the students who attend these schools who, that be discriminatory and disparately impact the quality and type of loans made available to students based on their race and socioeconomic background, in effect red-lining, where they are taking entire institutions, based on some data and so forth they collect to deny individual students within those institutions the lower cost access to financial support.

That amounts to red-lining, as we saw in housing issues only a few years ago. If that is the case, and we believe it may be, we will be taking steps to correct that as well. Students seeking to finance the cost of a higher education should have access to the most competitive and affordable loans available through private student loan markets, with appropriate consideration given to the credit worthiness of the student and any cosigner, without regard to the type of institution that student chooses to attend.

Students should have full and timely access to all of the information they need regarding the terms and conditions of private student loans in order to make a well-informed decision regarding the financing of their educational needs.

Given the growth of this market and its enormous impact on the educational and economic future of student borrowers, I view it as imperative that we address these issues as part of the consideration of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. We should ensure that the market is well regulated and accessible and affordable as an alternative source of higher education funding for those who need the loans in our country.

We can do that, in my view, by prohibiting industry practices like revenue sharing and co-branding that present conflicts of interest by providing student borrowers with better, more timely disclosure information so that students understand the rates, the terms, and the conditions of the loans they are going to receive.

We must work to make sure that private student lending practices are transparent so the public can be confident that students and families are obtaining the most competitive and affordable student loans with the fairest terms.

I plan on working with my friend and colleague, Senator Shelby of Alabama, who is the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, and all members of that committee for that matter, on this bill. We are in the process of doing that now. I would say under the circumstances that this bill is coming up, we would be prohibited, under Senate rules, from raising that issue on this particular vehicle.

I do not in any way suggest that what they are doing is not the right thing to be doing, it is the right thing to be doing, but our bill that deals specifically with student financing and lending institutions will be presented at an appropriate time, possibly when the full higher education bill is before us--but we are determined on a bipartisan basis to address some of these issues, if not all of them, that I have raised briefly this afternoon.

Indeed, this bill before us provides all students with the tools that make it possible to access and afford a postsecondary education. If we are serious about leaving no child behind, as I know all of us are as a nation, then we must reinvigorate our commitment to higher education, to ensure that students have access to a higher education, to a college education.

If America is to remain the land of opportunity that all of us want it to be, then we must ensure that college is available to all of our citizenry. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this long overdue legislation.

I often cite the fact that in our Nation's history, it has always been a stunning commentary about our country, as it has evolved and matured over the years, that one of the very first bills that ever passed the United States Congress in the 18th century, in the early 1790s, was the Northwest Ordnance. My colleague from Colorado probably is more familiar than I, given he represents a State in the far West, but the whole idea being to set aside land for educational purposes.

The Morrill Act, which was adopted in the mid-1860s--in fact, right in the middle of the Civil War, Senator Morrill of Vermont offered legislation to create land grant colleges. So even in the midst of this great contest to determine whether we would remain one Nation, one Union, the Congress of the United States, under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln and Senator Morrill of Vermont, fought to create land grant colleges. The University of Connecticut is one of those institutions that provides incredible opportunities for young people all across the Nation, again understanding the value of education to our country.

So in the 18th and the 19th centuries, and then of course in the 20th century, we saw, even before World War II was concluded, the Congress of the United States passed the GI bill, which provided, of course, a whole generation of service men and women coming back from that war the ability to get an educational opportunity.

That investment in the GI bill has been repaid to the U.S. Government tenfold because of the earning power of the individuals who went through the GI bill who were able to improve their economic opportunity. The resources they paid back into our country have dwarfed the cost of that legislation.

Today we do not even think about legislation like that, given the cost, regrettably, I might add, because when you consider that 400,000--think of that, 400,000 of our young people in this country today are not going to go on to a higher education because of cost. That is, 400,000 young people who did everything they were asked to do, I presume, having been accepted on to higher education--will not get that chance because we do not have the resources or the will to come up with a system to make that possible.

We talk about being a major competitor nation in the 21st century. I promise you, our major competitors around the world are not making that mistake. They will create the opportunities for their young people to get that education. This bill is a major step to reverse that trend in our country.

There are other things we need to do, such as a proposal regarding private lenders that we will be offering shortly. I wish I could offer it today but, it would be subject to at least two points of order. So it would require a 60-vote margin to deal with it. We probably don't have a number of Members willing to go that far, I regret to say that. So I will wait for another opportunity in the coming weeks to do so. I will do that with Senator Shelby as we work on this together.

But my hope is, shortly we will have an opportunity to present legislation that will close up some of these abusive practices that have contributed to rising costs and depriving families and their children of having the best possible arrangements for the student loans they need to get a higher education.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the next Democratic Speaker be Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts; with the understanding that if a Republican Member wishes to speak, they would be permitted to do so between any majority speakers.

Mr. President, I had hoped to offer an amendment today to this year's Defense authorization bill regarding Iraq. I understand the leadership has decided to act on the Levin-Reed amendment before considering other amendments to this legislation. Given the existing parliamentary situation, I am not confident there will be an opportunity to get an up-or-down vote on my amendment or, for that matter, any other amendments that meaningfully mandates a change of course with respect to the administration's policy in Iraq.

It is deeply troubling and it saddens me that in the Senate, on the most critical issue of our day, we cannot consider, debate or vote on amendments affecting the lives and well-being of our servicemen and women and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in the most troubled spot in the world today. I believe those who refuse to allow this Senate to vote on this critical issue do a grave disservice to the American people by enabling the President to continue with his failed strategy in Iraq.

Every additional day we ``stay the course'' in Iraq, our Nation is less safe and the people of Iraq get further away from coming together to fashion a political and diplomatic solution to their civil conflict. Our men and women in uniform have served this Nation valiantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will continue to do so, I am confident, until our political leaders see the error of their judgment in this case and begin the process of drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq.

It is imperative, I believe, we change course in Iraq immediately. I think this is vitally important for our country and the well-being of that part of the world. Sadly, the President and his allies stand in the way of that goal. Support for the President's policy erodes as each passing day unfolds with more violence and chaos in Iraq.

I predict the day will come when Congress will have the courage to say enough is enough, but, sadly, it would not be before more American lives are lost or more wanton destruction occurs in the beleaguered nation of Iraq.

Let me speak briefly about the amendment I had hoped to offer--still hope to offer--and which I would like to offer at the earliest opportunity if, in fact, this logjam breaks. My amendment seeks to accomplish two critical tasks. First, to bring the Iraq war to a close by ending the financing of combat operations, mandating a phased redeployment of combat forces from Iraq, and ensuring the administration actually carries out that redeployment.

Second, the amendment proposes to redirect any savings realized from a reduced military presence in Iraq, to restore the readiness of our very war-battered National Guard and armed services. I strongly believe we must not wait any longer to achieve either task.

Now is the time for us to make difficult choices. Now is the time for the Senate to enact legislation that, I believe, will hold this administration accountable to this policy.

I support the Levin-Reed amendment, and I thank both our colleagues, the authors of that amendment, for demonstrating leadership in trying to move this body one step closer to bringing this disastrous war to a close. It is my hope that their amendment will do that, but I remain concerned about some aspects of that amendment--the extended delay in commencing redeployment and the absence of any funding linkage to redeployment. Based on past experiences with this administration, my concern is the President will simply ignore the legislation proposed by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the senior Senator from Rhode Island.

It has been quite difficult to track the ever-changing justifications for continuing our combat operations in Iraq, including the surge, and there appears to be no end in sight.

First, the administration simply refused to admit there was no military solution in Iraq or that Iraq was in a State of civil war.

Then, instead of acting upon a unique chance to implement the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission, which Congress supported, Secretary Rice explained that the administration was implementing a surge tactic, but assured us that it was an Iraqi plan. ``Most importantly,'' she claimed, ``the Iraqis have devised their own strategy, and our efforts will support theirs.''

Our country was told that despite the catastrophic policy failures of this administration up until that point, that the surge would take time to work and that we couldn't judge its success until U.S. forces had ``surged'' to their maximum levels--and that would take up to 6 months.

But that the surge is at full force, and we are told yet again that the time isn't right to make a judgment about the success or failure of the administration's policy. Now we are told we must wait until September to determine the success of the surge. I strongly suspect, as I stand here in July, that as September draws near the administration will once again come up with some additional arguments to delay the day of reckoning on the policy in Iraq.

I do not need any more time, or any more reports and briefings to confirm what most of us already know. The American people and the Iraqi people don't need any more time to realize that the administration's Iraq policy, including the surge, has been a failure. With the exception of a handful in this body, I have not said anything that most of my colleagues do not believe themselves. Why, then, are we waiting? As we wait yet another 2 or 3 months to decide what most of us here have already concluded, while disagreeing about how best to achieve this result, there is a consensus that has emerged that I think is probably more than a supermajority. After all the time waiting here, our servicemen and women and the beleaguered people of Iraq will pay an awful price indeed, as we fool around and dicker while deciding to come to the conclusion we have all basically reached already.

The highly respected International Crisis Group recently released a report on Iraq which examined the complex reasons for the current political violence in Iraq, and concluded that any surge based on a purely military operation with a simplistic view of the bloodshed's origins was destined for failure.

We mustn't sacrifice any more lives, we shouldn't countenance any more bloodshed, and we shouldn't support the continuation of the failed escalation of a disastrous policy. The April-May American death toll is a new 2-month record. The civilian casualty rate in Iraq is at an all- time high. Overall violence in Iraq is up and, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent, the number of internally displaced Iraqis has quadrupled since January. In fact, the Iraqi Red Crescent warns that there is currently a human tragedy unprecedented in Iraq's history.''

As recent GAO reports have highlighted what we all intuitively have concluded--that there has been little progress on the key detailed provisions of Iraq's hydrocarbon law, let alone on reforming the Iraqi constitution, on debaathification, or on a host of other essential political components to a functioning Iraqi government, focused on reconciliation. In fact, Foreign Policy magazine recently released their ``failed state index'' and Iraq rose to No. 2 on that index, closely behind Sudan.

The President told the American people that the surge of troops into key cities in Iraq was being executed in order to provide the Iraqis with some political breathing space to start the reconciliation process. Secretary Rice explained that ``the most urgent task now is to help the Iraqi government establish the confidence that it can and will protect all of its citizens, regardless of their sectarian identity, and that it will reinforce security with political reconciliation and economic support.''

But none of that has happened--and falsely claiming that it has, won't make us safer, won't secure Iraq, won't secure our interests in the region, and won't rebuild our military.

As my friend Senator Lugar, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said recently

In my judgment, the current surge strategy is not an

effective means of protecting these interests. Its prospects

for success are too dependent on the actions of others who do

not share our agenda. It relies on military power to achieve

goals that it cannot achieve. It distances allies that we

will need for any regional diplomatic effort. Its failure,

without a careful transition to a back-up policy would

intensify our loss of credibility. It uses tremendous amounts

of resources that cannot be employed in other ways to secure

our objectives.

I fully agree with my friend and colleague from Indiana.

That is why my amendment also calls on the administration to appoint a high-level special envoy to Iraq to engage in a new diplomatic offensive--exactly what the Baker Hamilton Commission called for over 6 months ago. It is imperative that we engage Iraqi leaders, regional leaders and international organizations such as the United Nations and the Arab League to promote reconciliation and stability in Iraq. I know of no other way this is likely to occur.

This administration has long neglected the key diplomatic and political aspects of the conflict in Iraq, despite the calls of many of us, including my good friend Senator Hagel, who recently outlined a plan to ``internationalize'' our efforts to help Iraqis reach political reconciliation, including appointing a U.N. Security Council-backed international mediator.

The amendment offered by Senators Levin and Reed also calls for such a mediator, which I fully support.

But, despite the fact that there is no military solution to this conflict, which we have said for now almost 3\1/2\ years, this administration and too many in the Congress are still wedded to only military solutions. In fact, these defenders of the Iraq war continue claim that we are in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, just like they continue to falsely claim that al-Qaida had links to Saddam Hussein.

But according to a recent article by Michael Gordon, the coauthor of Cobra II:

al-Qaida in Mesopotamia [the action of al-Qaida currently

in Iraq] did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. This

Sunni group has thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a

force for violence largely because of the American invasion

of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of

more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and

led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

Moreover, according to recent media accounts, it is the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia led by the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, not al-Qaida in Mesopotamia that poses the greatest risk to American troops in Baghdad. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Mahdi Army's frequent and brazen attacks on U.S. soldiers also appear to challenge the idea that the Mahdi Army has been lying low to avoid confrontations with Americans.

Perhaps most frustrating of all, while feverishly attempting to find linkages between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi insurgents, the administration has taken its eye off the ball of the bigger threats posed by looming terrorists having little or nothing to do with Iraq.

The GAO recently slammed the administration's anti-terrorism efforts in a report entitled ``Law Enforcement Agencies Lack Directives to Assist Foreign Nations to Identify, Disrupt and Prosecute Terrorists.'' The report found that there is a tremendous deficit of communication and coordination among key U.S. agencies, which in turn severely hampers our efforts at fighting international terrorism and aiding foreign governments in doing so.

Six years after 9/11, this administration has singularly focused on Iraq, while failing to effectively fight international terrorism. It may be true that for the Bush administration that Iraq is the central front in their ``war on terror'', but this misplaced focus has made America less secure as a result.

Simply put, we must stop the downward spiral in Iraq, and refocus our efforts at effectively and robustly combating extremism and terrorism around the world--and my amendment would begin to do just that. Why is that the case?

Because my amendment sets clear timelines for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, with three specific exceptions for activities that are critical to our national security interests and the interests of Iraq: First, conducting counterrorism operations in Iraq, targeted at al-Qaida in Mesopotamia; second, training and equipping Iraqi forces; and third, force protection for U.S. personnel and infrastructure.

This amendment also provides a specific timeline for all combat forces to redeploy out of Iraq, aside from the three exceptions I just mentioned, by April 30, 2008.

To ensure that this process gets underway without any stonewalling by the administration or anyone in his administration, my amendment sets an interim deadline of December 31, 2007, at which point at least 50,000 troops must have been redeployed out of Iraq.

Failure to meet this initial milestone will result in a funding penalty. The amendment would withhold 25 percent of the fiscal year 2008 military budget for Iraq-related activities until the President certifies that he can meet the overall April 30, 2008, deadline.

Ultimately, this amendment calls for the redeployment of approximately 90,000 combat troops within the next 9 months, leaving about 70,000 to complete the three non-combat missions that I have already outlined.

The redeployed forces would be comprised of a majority of the deployed Army brigade combat teams and the Marine Expeditionary Force currently in theater.

Now, some may say that such redeployment is not logistically achievable within the timeframes laid out in the amendment.

However, I want to remind my colleagues that in the ramp up to the first gulf war, the Department of Defense coordinated the movement of over 500,000 troops and 10 million tons of cargo and fuel in the same timeframe that this amendment grants to redeploy a force one-fifth the size.

In January 1991, alone, the Transportation Command moved approximately 132,000 troops, 1 million tons of cargo, and over 1 million tons of fuel. If it is possible to coordinate the logistics to go to war, it is certainly possible, in my view, to get our troops out of harm's way and bring our military involvement in this civil war to a close.

Of course, there is always a concern about the cost of conducting a redeployment. Senator Conrad, now chairman of the Budget Committee, asked this very question to the Congressional Budget Office in 2002, requesting an assessment of the costs of the Iraq war; including the eventual redeployment of our forces. The CBO concluded that the redeployment of our forces to their home bases would cost approximately $7 billion, less than the cost of 1 month of ongoing operations in Iraq.

Can we trust this figure? The very same report notes that monthly costs for the war would run between $6 billion and $9 billion per month--that was in 2002; which is exactly what we saw until the incursion of additional surge related costs.

Up until now, the cost of the war in Iraq has been mainly measured in the number of lives lost and U.S. Treasury spent--and rightly so. Mr. President, 3,600 brave American servicemembers have been killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, and Congress has approved approximately $450 billion.

But there is yet another cost of war--our military's readiness.

While long, arduous deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are testing the morale of our troops in the field and their families, they are also taxing critical stocks of aircraft, vehicles and equipment that our military needs to prepare for other challenges in the 21st century.

According to recent military reports, two-thirds of the U.S. Army is unable to report for combat duty, and the Army's top generals have said that if the administration continues to fail to meet these needs, the situation could further deteriorate.

The situation for our National Guard is even worse. According to National Guard Bureau Chief, LTG Steven Blum, ``88 percent of the force that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard.'' Such a statistic is unconscionable to me--and it affects the National Guard units in every State of every last Senator in this Chamber.

My amendment will take steps to remedy this dire situation and begin to rebuild our military. This debate is

about priorities. Will we continue to fund a failed strategy, in my view, in Iraq that is leaving us less secure and that is hollowing out our military?

Or will we meet our commitments to our service members and our Nation, by restoring the readiness of our forces which have been severely damaged by this administration's policies?

In my view, the answer is simple. Our military's top generals and admirals have submitted to Congress lists of critical military priorities that would not be funded under the President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal.

Billions of dollars a week are being squandered in Iraq, while our Nation's military is calling out for additional resources to repair the damage caused by the administration's policies.

My amendment therefore reprioritizes our defense budget to rebuild our military. It stops financing combat missions in Iraq and redirects funding to meeting priorities for the armed services.

Savings made available by downsizing our force in Iraq would be invested in items identified by each of our military's Service Chiefs. Funding levels for these items would not exceed the amounts specified in their official fiscal year 2008 unfunded requirements lists submitted to Congress earlier this year.

The Army Chief of Staff has found over $10 billion in critical shortfalls, including funding for specially armored trucks known as MRAPs or mine resistant ambush protected vehicles; night vision goggles, and bomb disposal gear.

The Marine Corps' ``unfunded requirement list'' submitted by the Commandant includes over $3 billion for similar priorities as well as new helicopters; communications gear and training equipment.

The Navy's list totals over $5.6 billion, including helicopters, sailor housing, and aircraft maintenance.

The Air Force's unfunded priorities, totaling over $16 billion, includes much needed resources to modernize radar systems and restore our fleet of cargo aircraft to help redeploy our troops and their equipment.

The National Guard Bureau Chief has identified over a billion dollars needed to begin rebuilding Guard forces across the United States--to replace and repair vehicles, aircraft, and personal gear, necessary for homeland security missions.

The amendment I would like to offer would allow for funding to restore National Guard equipment readiness. Due to the administration's mismanagement, the National Guard is facing a $38 billion equipment shortfall, according to General Blum.

A recent report by the U.S. Commission on the National Guard and Reserves disclosed that the administration's policies have actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform both their overseas and homeland defense missions. Under orders by the administration, the National Guard troops have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan for our troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down or destroyed in battle, but any critical equipment that may have survived is simply being transferred to other units coming into Iraq and Afghanistan.

In my home State of Connecticut, the adjutant general, MG Thaddeus Martin, recently reported that equipment shortages exceed $200 million in my State. This includes more than 200 humvees, 21 large support vehicles and tankers and heavy-cargo vehicles, over 600 personnel and crew-served weapons systems, over 1,500 night-vision devices, and even one medium-lift helicopter.

What does all of this mean? It means that we are short of equipment to respond to natural or manmade disasters here at home, short of equipment for training, short of equipment to maintain the standard of maintenance rotation for equipment currently in the field, short of equipment for units deploying into harm's way--short of equipment to protect the American people themselves.

The Government Accountability Office highlighted this very important point in testimony released on October 20, 2005, and I quote it. It stated:

The cumulative effect of these personnel and equipment

transfers has been a decline in the readiness of Army

National Guard forces for future missions, both overseas and

at home.

This data alone should demonstrate to everyone unequivocally that each of us has to fulfill our obligations to our warfighters. Now is the time to begin the rebuilding process. In my view, the sooner we redeploy out of Iraq, get our military out of that situation, the sooner we can redirect these vital funds to rebuild our forces here at home.

None of our choices are easy. I don't suggest by my remarks here that they are. But they are clear choices. It is about time we made them. To govern is to choose the policy that is best for our Nation, even in the face of extreme difficulty. So I call on my colleagues here today to make those choices which experience, commonsense, and overwhelming data compel; that is, to force the President to redeploy, to rebuild our Armed Forces, and to end this disastrous involvement in the civil war.

The last several months have been a story of squandered chances. We have paid for them in American lives. Again, to delay another 2 or 3 months to arrive at a conclusion most of us have already arrived at is something I think is unacceptable. And that lives which may be lost or damaged because we waited 2 or 3 months to arrive at a conclusion that most here already believe to be the case, is certainly a sad day for this body. We cannot even have votes, we cannot even consider the various ideas we bring to the Chamber that might bring this war and our involvement in it to a close.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.