Floor Statements

Mr. President, today, Senator Landrieu and I come to the floor to introduce the Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007. This bill will help jump-start economic development in the communities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It will also help bring people home so they can resume their lives.

At the outset, let me recognize Senator Landrieu for all of her efforts to secure assistance for the people of Louisiana, who suffered the lion's share of damage from the 2005 hurricanes. She has worked tirelessly, every day since the storms, to ensure that Louisianans and others in the gulf coast can return to vibrant towns and cities. I also want to recognize the work of Congresswoman Waters and Financial Services Chairman Frank, who laid the groundwork for this legislation in the House. They did an outstanding job of ushering a housing recovery bill through the House.

The bill we are introducing today does the following: it authorizes additional funding to help rebuild the gulf coast; it requires the Federal, state and local governments to take additional actions to bring people home; and it requires accountability on the part of FEMA, HUD, and the states and cities receiving Federal funds.

Almost 2 years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, hundreds of thousands of people remain in limbo, wondering if they will be able to return home. The population in New Orleans remains at about half of pre-Katrina levels, though local groups and residents have made clear that many more want to return. Unfortunately, many of these families have no home to return to, and there is great uncertainty about whether adequate services will be available if they do return. As of April of this year, less than half of New Orleans' public schools, a third of its child care centers, and half of its hospitals were open.

Over 82,000 families from across the devastated region are still living in FEMA trailers, which were recently found to contain toxic chemicals. Over 32,000 families are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD, and over 11,000 others are receiving temporary rental assistance through HUD. Tens of thousands of other families are being assisted by cities, counties and individuals throughout the gulf region and our country.

Much has already been done to help restore the gulf coast. Billions of dollars have been spent to house evacuees and clean up areas of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. In addition, emergency CDBG funds have been appropriated to help families start to rebuild their homes and their lives. While these funds are finally getting to people in need, the reach of these funds is limited, to a great extent, to those who owned homes prior to the storms. Both Louisiana and Mississippi have understandably focused their efforts on getting homes rebuilt, and I support their efforts to help people whose largest asset was washed away. However, we must not forget the large number of residents who were renters at the time of the storms, many of whom held jobs that were critical to the economy and the culture of the gulf coast, including jobs necessary for the tourism and fishing industries.

In New Orleans, over half of the rental housing was flooded. We have an obligation, as a fair society, to ensure that all of our citizens in the gulf coast, including renters, are given the opportunity to return home, and the bill that Senator Landrieu and I are introducing today will do that.

This bill helps to do six key things that are necessary to help those displaced as a result of the hurricanes return to thriving cities and towns: it helps to bring people home; it replaces lost housing; it creates homeownership opportunities; it spurs economic and community development; it provides continued assistance to evacuees; and it requires accountability so that funds are properly used.

There are numerous provisions in our bill that will help families of all income levels return to a stronger gulf coast. I want to highlight a few of these provisions.

While most of the funds already provided to individuals for rebuilding efforts have gone to homeowners, even those funds have proven to be insufficient. The Louisiana Road Home program has pledged all of its funds, leaving many eligible homeowners without any assistance. This bill authorizes funding necessary to make this program whole so long as the State of Louisiana puts up $1 billion of its own funds towards this shortfall. I will be working with Senator Landrieu over the coming weeks to get a better sense of the exact amount needed in this program, why a shortfall of this amount exists, and to determine the legitimate uses of these funds.

Prior to the storm, there were over 5,200 families living in public housing in New Orleans, and thousands of others throughout the Gulf States. Many of these families include people with disabilities, seniors, and children. We cannot turn our backs on them.

HUD is currently running the Housing Authority of New Orleans, HANO, and it plans to demolish much of the public housing without replacing many of the affordable units. I believe this is shortsighted. I understand that in rebuilding New Orleans, there are many who advocate deconcentrating poverty, and I believe we can achieve this goal without sacrificing needed affordable housing. Under the bill we are introducing today, every unit of public housing that was occupied prior to the storm must be replaced, but not necessarily with a traditional public housing unit, nor in a traditional public housing setting.

In order to facilitate the replacement of public housing in New Orleans, this bill takes HANO out of HUD's hands, and puts it into judicial receivership. HANO has been a troubled agency for many years, and HUD control has not led to enough improvement. We need significant change at this agency.

This bill helps to spur much-needed development. It requires $55 million from funds previously given to the State of Louisiana to be used to help finance community development pilot programs in the State so that land can be acquired, bundled sold for redevelopment. In addition, the bill establishes an innovative program, the FHA-New Orleans Homeownership Opportunities Initiative, under which HUD will transfer to the New Orleans Redevelopment Authority properties which are under HUD control to be used for homeownership opportunities for low-income families.

While providing large amounts of Federal funds to the disaster area, it is important to ensure that funds are used correctly and are not subject to waste, fraud and abuse. This bill has stringent monitoring and reporting requirements that apply to FEMA, HUD, and the States receiving emergency funds so that the Congress can keep tabs on the disaster spending and ensure funds are being used efficiently and effectively to help rebuild and strengthen the gulf coast.

The Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 is a critical step towards rebuilding the gulf coast. It is supported by a broad coalition of national organizations, including the AARP, ACORN, Enterprise Community Partners, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the NAACP, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Fair Housing Alliance, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, US Jesuit Conference, Volunteers of America, as well as Gulf Coast organizations such as Alabama Arise, Catholic Charities of New Orleans, Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, the Louisiana Association of Nonprofit Organizations, and Providence Community Housing.

Again, I would like to thank my colleague Senator Landrieu for her work to restore the lives of so many of her constituents and others in the gulf coast region. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that needed housing and community development activities can be undertaken in the gulf coast.

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

Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues in supporting the Head Start for School Readiness Act, which reauthorizes this critically important program to help prepare our most disadvantaged young children to attend school. We have worked hard to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor, and I particularly thank Senators Kennedy, Enzi, and Alexander for their leadership on this issue.

For more than 40 years, Head Start provided comprehensive early childhood development services to low-income children, creating an important bridge to kindergarten and beyond.

Head Start addresses the comprehensive needs of children and their families by offering not only academic opportunities, but also supports for health, nutrition, social skills, and more. More than 900,000 children across the Nation, including nearly 9,000 children in Connecticut, depend on Head Start to support their social, emotional, physical, and cognitive development. Head Start is the foundation for a lifetime of learning for many of our most vulnerable children, and this reauthorization provides for continued success, while also strengthening the program.

Among the many improvements in this legislation, of great importance is the expanded access to Head Start for more disadvantaged children. In Connecticut and other States where the cost of living is particularly high, many poor families aren't able to enroll their children in Head Start because they earn incomes just above the poverty level. This reauthorization allows programs to serve families with incomes up to 130 percent of the Federal poverty level, and expands opportunities for children of migrant families, Indian children, homeless children, foster children, as well as additional infants and toddler in Early Head Start programs.

Currently, only half of all eligible children are served in Head Start, and fewer than 5 percent are served in Early Head Start. Head Start programs are also facing tremendous increases in operating costs, including transportation, health care premiums, facilities maintenance, and training for staff; yet Head Start has essentially been flatfunded for years. This legislation authorizes an increase from $6.9 billion in the current fiscal year, to $7.3 billion in fiscal year 2008, $7.5 billion in fiscal year 2009, and $7.9 billion in fiscal year 2010, which will begin to meet the needs of Head Start children and allow for more enrollment opportunities. However, we must also acknowledge that we still have far to go before we provide adequate resources to this invaluable program.

We know that children struggle when their families are not involved in their education; and that parents play the most important role in ensuring the success of their children. This legislation encourages a high level of family involvement, maintains the integral participation of parents in the day-to-day operations of the programs, and offers family members key roles as decisionmakers.

I am pleased that this bill also improves program accountability by further clarifying governance responsibilities and enhancing teacher quality expectations. While we establish goals for improving educational standards for staff, we acknowledge that current resources may not adequately support staff to pursue additional training, nor provide enough for increased wages; therefore, we do not make these standards mandatory.

Head Start must continue to maintain a core and integral role in our broader early childhood care and education systems as we expand our efforts to improve early education across this country. The legislation encourages greater collaboration and coordination with other early childhood development programs.

Passing the Head Start for School Readiness Act today is an important step forward to improve opportunities for low-income children. Nothing reduces poverty like learning, and Head Start gives children what they need to learn early. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that this important legislation becomes law.

Mr. President, I share Senator Murray's concerns and appreciate the commitment to working with us on this issue.

S. 556 also includes specific responsibilities of the State advisory council regarding early childhood activities, professional development and opportunities for coordination and collaboration. My State of Connecticut has been a leader in promoting the coordination and improvement of early learning opportunities for young children and has successfully carried out activities that complement the responsibilities under this act. Connecticut's Early Childhood Education Cabinet, which includes many of the members required by the Head Start Act, already advises the State on policy and on initiatives to meet early childhood goals, conducts statewide evaluations of the school readiness programs, and promotes collaboration and consistency of quality services.

Is it the intention that States would be required to abandon the progress made with their existing efforts and begin new initiatives to fulfill their responsibilities under S. 556?

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, that seeks to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

In February, 2003, a multi-alarm fire at a nursing home in Hartford, CT, took the lives of 16 residents. It was the worst nursing home fire in Connecticut's history. The tragic loss of life was made worse by the fact that the nursing home lacked an automatic sprinkler system, a defect disturbingly common in many nursing homes across the country.

I believe many Americans, especially those with a loved one in a nursing home facility, would be shocked to learn that, according to the Government Accountability Office between 20 and 30 percent of the country's 17,000 nursing homes lack an automatic sprinkler system. In its 2004 report, the GAO found that ``the substantial loss of life in the [Hartford fire] could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' Furthermore, the report concluded that ``the Federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.''

Responding to the fire in Hartford and a similar tragedy in Nashville, TN, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, required that nursing homes without automatic sprinkler systems install battery-operated smoke detectors. While this new requirement was viewed as a positive step, it was largely criticized by fire and patient- safety advocates because smoke detectors are often not wired to a central alarm system or a fire department.

I believe it is safe to assume that nursing home directors do not choose freely to operate their facilities without automatic sprinkler systems. According to the GAO and the American Health Care Association, most nursing homes simply cannot afford the costs incurred by installing an automatic sprinkler system. Today, many nursing homes, including many in Connecticut, are financially strained by inadequate reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, rising insurance premiums, rising energy costs, and the general cost of care for some of our country's most vulnerable patients.

That is why Senator Burr and I are reintroducing this legislation. The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2007 provides low-interest loans and grants to nursing homes in proven need of financial assistance. The larger loan initiative assists nursing homes that cannot afford the upfront costs of installing automatic sprinkler systems but can afford to pay back a low-interest Government-issued loan. The smaller grant initiative would assist qualified nursing homes that lack any ability to pay for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. Together, these initiatives would provide critical resources to prevent tragedies like those seen in Hartford and Nashville from occurring again.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, for reintroducing this bipartisan measure with me. I also thank Congressmen John Larson from Connecticut and Peter King from New York for spearheading companion legislation in the House. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

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

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, that seeks to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

In February, 2003, a multi-alarm fire at a nursing home in Hartford, CT, took the lives of 16 residents. It was the worst nursing home fire in Connecticut's history. The tragic loss of life was made worse by the fact that the nursing home lacked an automatic sprinkler system, a defect disturbingly common in many nursing homes across the country.

I believe many Americans, especially those with a loved one in a nursing home facility, would be shocked to learn that, according to the Government Accountability Office between 20 and 30 percent of the country's 17,000 nursing homes lack an automatic sprinkler system. In its 2004 report, the GAO found that ``the substantial loss of life in the [Hartford fire] could have been reduced or eliminated by the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' Furthermore, the report concluded that ``the Federal oversight of nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.''

Responding to the fire in Hartford and a similar tragedy in Nashville, TN, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, required that nursing homes without automatic sprinkler systems install battery-operated smoke detectors. While this new requirement was viewed as a positive step, it was largely criticized by fire and patient- safety advocates because smoke detectors are often not wired to a central alarm system or a fire department.

I believe it is safe to assume that nursing home directors do not choose freely to operate their facilities without automatic sprinkler systems. According to the GAO and the American Health Care Association, most nursing homes simply cannot afford the costs incurred by installing an automatic sprinkler system. Today, many nursing homes, including many in Connecticut, are financially strained by inadequate reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, rising insurance premiums, rising energy costs, and the general cost of care for some of our country's most vulnerable patients.

That is why Senator Burr and I are reintroducing this legislation. The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2007 provides low-interest loans and grants to nursing homes in proven need of financial assistance. The larger loan initiative assists nursing homes that cannot afford the upfront costs of installing automatic sprinkler systems but can afford to pay back a low-interest Government-issued loan. The smaller grant initiative would assist qualified nursing homes that lack any ability to pay for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. Together, these initiatives would provide critical resources to prevent tragedies like those seen in Hartford and Nashville from occurring again.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, for reintroducing this bipartisan measure with me. I also thank Congressmen John Larson from Connecticut and Peter King from New York for spearheading companion legislation in the House. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.

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

Mr. President, my amendment prevents this bill from dividing millions of families by making it easier for U.S. citizens and their parents to unite. I offer it with the cosponsorship of my good friends, Majority Leader Senator Reid and Senator Menendez.

The amendment has also been endorsed by over 25 organizations including the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of La Raza, the Episcopal Church, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Under current law, parents are defined as immediate relatives and exempt from green card caps. Yet this bill arbitrarily and irresponsibly excludes parents from the nuclear family and subjects them to excessively low green card caps and a restrictive visitor visa program as well.

This amendment does three things. First it increases this newly established cap from 40,000 to 90,000. 90,000 is the average number of green cards issued to parents each year. Last year, however, 120,000 parents entered the U.S. on green cards. If this bill is really serious about eliminating backlogs, then it ought to set practical caps. It is not the place of the Congress to tell American citizens to wait a year or two or three or more to see their parents.

Second, it extends the newly created temporary parent visitor visa from 30 to 180 days. To think that a parent can only be with his child or grandchild for 1 month out of 12 is simply unacceptable. Yet under this provision, a tourist can be in America six times longer than the parent of a citizen. That is not the America I know; nor is it an America that cherishes family values. Parents must be allowed to stay with their families for longer.

Third, this amendment prevents collective punishment for parent visitor visa overstays. Under this bill, if the overstay rate exceeds 7 percent for 2 years, either all nationals of countries with high overstay rates can be barred or the entire program can terminated. This type of collective punishment is wrong and unjust. We should not punish law abiding people because of the misdeeds of others.

My amendment does not strike at this bill's core; nor is it a partisan

issue. It is one of basic fairness to our fellow citizens. I especially reject the notion that imposing such excessive restrictions are necessary to reduce ``chain migration.'' The fact is that once parents of citizens obtain visas, they usually complete the family unit and are not likely to sponsor others.

What is at stake here is whether Congress should dictate to U.S. citizens if and when they can unite with their parents; if and when their parents can come and be with their grandchildren; if and when U.S. citizens can care for their sick parents here on American soil.

It is our duty to remove as many obstacles as we can for our fellow citizens to be with their parents. None of us would stand for anyone dictating the terms of that union to us. Why should we then apply a double standard for other citizens of this country? We must craft a law that is tough yet just.

I know that the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, may raise a question with respect to how the Dodd-Menendez amendment is currently drafted, arguing that by upping the subceiling on parent immigrant visas from 40,000 to 90,000 annually, my amendment introduces discretion to the Department of Homeland Security in deciding what to do on issuing family immigrant visas among the subceilings as we get close to the annual cap of 567,000 contained in the bill.

I would have preferred to raise the overall 567,000 annual cap currently in the bill by the additional 50,000--the increase my amendment provides for the parent immigrant visa subceiling.

But had I done so, I would likely have faced a 60-vote threshold due to a budget point of order as my colleague Senator Menendez did last night on his family unification amendment.

There is nothing scientific about the 567,000 annual immigrant visa cap currently contained in the bill. Am I to believe that this grand compromise bill will be destroyed if an additional 50,000 parents of American citizens are granted green cards annually so they can be closer to their American children and American grandchildren?

The so called discretionary authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security that Senator Specter may argue is created by this amendment can easily be fixed in conference by raising the current cap by 50,000.

I refuse to let the technicalities of the subceilings and overall ceilings contained in this complex legislation cloud the real issue Senators will be deciding as they cast their votes on this amendment; namely, do my colleagues believe that parents and grandparents are important members of the American nuclear family or do they believe that they are merely distant relatives--irrelevant to the daily lives of our families?

I believe the former. I would suspect most of my colleagues do as well.

And so, I urge my colleagues not to think of this amendment in terms of numbers and caps, but in terms of its human impact. I urge them to vote for it in order to remove the obstacles created by this bill which will prevent American citizens--we are talking about American citizens--from having their loving parents be with them to share the joys and challenges of the American family.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of organizations supporting this amendment at the end of my remarks.

I will cite a couple of them for my colleagues. The 25 or 30 organizations include the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of La Raza, the Episcopal Church, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, among many other organizations; Asian American organizations, Asian American Justice Center. There is a long list here. As I say, I will include that as requested in the Record.

But, again, Mr. President, this ought not to be a complicated proposal for my colleagues. It is one that I think all of us should endorse and support. I don't see this violating the core agreement. It is not the deal breaker that we hear about, but it is merely doing what I think most Americans and most of our colleagues would agree on: letting U.S. citizens have the opportunity, at least to a larger extent than this bill would allow, to have their parents be a part of the family unit, that nuclear family.

Exhibit 1

Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, write to

share with you our support of the Dodd amendment to the

proposed immigration bill. Under current law, parents of U.S.

citizens are defined as immediate relatives, along with

spouses and minor children, and are exempt from visa

limitations.

The proposed legislation removes them from this category,

subjects them to an annual cap of 40,000 green cards, and

creates a new parent visitor visa category that would allow

them to stay in the United States for only 30 days.

Typically, 90,000 visas are issued each year to parents--the

proposal reduces the number of visas available by more than

half. The agreement also penalizes all parents from a

particular country by barring them from entering into the

United States should the rate of overstay of parents from

that country be above 7 percent in two consecutive years.

The debate around this provision goes to the heart of the

value we place on family. Parents are not distant relatives

but absolutely vital members to most families. Often, parents

enable their adult children to work by providing free and

trusted care for their grandchildren. Immigrant parents also

contribute their labor and talents to small, family owned

businesses. The American economy also benefits from having

dollars earned here, be spent here instead of having to be

sent overseas to family members left behind.

Contrary to some arguments, immigrant parents coming

through the family system will not burden taxpayers or the

economy. In fact, as non-citizens, they are generally

ineligible for a majority of federal public benefits unless

they earn them through sufficient work. Moreover, their adult

children must sign affidavits of support and prove that they

have sufficient resources to support their parents.

The Dodd amendment recognizes these close family ties and

the economic and societal benefits that accrue when they are

honored by:

Increasing the green card cap to 90,000. The number 90,000

represents the average annual number of green cards issued to

parents. The proposed bill slashes this number by more than

half to 40,000. This amendment would ensure that sufficient

numbers of green cards are available for parents to come to

the United States.

Extending the parent visa to 180 days, and making it

renewable and valid for three years. These are already

accepted timeframes for other temporary visas, 180 days is

the length of a tourist visa; H-1Bs are valid for three

years. The proposed bill, however, limits parents to an

annual stay of 30 days, and does not specify long-term

validity. This is too short an allotment--particularly for

parents who come to help their children.

Making penalties for parent visa overstays applicable only

to guilty parties. The proposed bill states that if the

overstay rate among visa holders exceeds 7 percent for two

years, all nationals of countries with high overstay rates

can be barred from this visa program or the program can be

terminated. Sponsors of overstays are also barred from

sponsoring other aliens on this visa. This amendment strikes

language that unfairly collectively punishes those who have

not violated the law, allowing law-abiding parents to

continue to unite with their children.

The Dodd amendment unites parents with their families in

the U.S. by increasing the annual cap on green cards for

parents; extending the duration of the parent visa; and

ensuring that penalties imposed on overstays are not unfairly

applied to others. We are asking that you vote for this

amendment.

Respectfully,

American Friends Service Committee

American Immigration Lawyers Association

American Jewish Committee

Asian American Justice Center

Asian & Pacific Islander

American Health Forum

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus

Congressional Hispanic Caucus

Dominican American National Roundtable

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society

Hmong National Development

League of United Latin American Citizens

Legal Momentum

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging

National Council of La Raza

National Federation of Filipino American Associations

NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

Organization for Justice & Equality

Service Employees International Union

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

The Episcopal Church

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

U.S. Citizens for United Families

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

World Relief

Madam President, this April, more than 1,200 students from across the country visited Washington, DC, to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, an educational program developed to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

I am proud to announce that a class from Trumbull High School of Trumbull, CT, received an Honorable Mention Award at this prestigious national event. Seven Honorable Mention Awards were presented to schools placing 4th through 10th on the final day of competition. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our Nation's Capitol and compete at the national level.

While in Washington, the students participated in a 3-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues.

I am also pleased to note that the We the People curriculum is aligned with the National Standards for Civics and Government and correlates with the social studies standards of many states.

The names of these outstanding students from Trumbull High School are: Alexa Alexander, Akanksha Bajaj, Rebecca Chadwick, Chelsea Clyde, Ashley Cohen, Shane Connolly, Victoria Costello, Mulan Cui, Megan Denstedt, Jackson Dolan, Adam Drenkard, Mike Finik, George Fitzpatrick, Casey Gardiner, Blake Ludwig, Alex Mosello, Elisa Odoardi, Alison Ornitz, Matt Pankracij, Mary Santella, Jaclyn Siegel, Matt Socha, Edward Tillistrand, and Stephen Wagner.

I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Mike Margonis, who is responsible for preparing these young constitutional experts for the national finals. Also worthy of special recognition are Jim Schmidt and Julie Jaquish, the State coordinators, and Lorna Gallagher, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my state.

I congratulate these students on their exceptional achievement at the We the People national finals.

Mr. President, I rise today, to introduce The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 to create and enhance public-private partnerships to strengthen investment in early childhood development programs, considering the needs of all children from birth to their entry in kindergarten. Investing in our youngest children is essential to promote their healthy development and school readiness. I pleased that two of my colleagues from Connecticut in the House of Representatives--Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and Congressman Joe Courtney--will introduce companion legislation today.

We have a body of knowledge on early childhood development that must be put into practice through policies that aid the crucial emotional, social and intellectual development that occurs in the first 3 years of life. Research indicates that investments in the early years of a child's life pay dividends later through improved health, readiness for school, and economic well-being. The return on investment also includes more successful transition to kindergarten; reduced special education and remedial education placements; better employment opportunities and higher earnings; and lower incidence of crime and dependence on public welfare. Our Nation's economy benefits from early childhood investments through a better prepared workforce, stronger growth, and a rising standard of living. Additionally, society will benefit from less crime, enhanced schools, and children who are better prepared to participate as citizens in a democratic society, as a result of increased investments in early childhood development.

Many States have an Early Learning Council or an advisory council that coordinates and aligns various programs serving children from birth to kindergarten entry. These entities facilitate collaboration among early childhood development activities in each State, but do not necessarily provide additional funding. Resources from Federal and State governments alone are not adequate to provide access to quality

early childhood development programs for all children.

Currently the Federal Government provides funding for a variety of early childhood development programs including the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and Head Start, which have been essentially flat funded in recent years. States supplement this funding and also provide funding for State and local prekindergarten programs and parent development and support programs, such as home visiting. However, the Federal and State resources alone are not enough to reach all of our Nation's young children. In order to get closer to the goal of providing access to quality programs for all children before they enter kindergarten, the private sector also plays an important role. In addition, the Federal Government should provide resources to reward innovation at the state and community level and to leverage additional resources for continued innovation.

In States such as Washington, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Arizona, Nebraska, Illinois, Vermont, and Virginia, public-private partnerships leverage resources to provide for the varied health and learning needs of children from birth to kindergarten entry and their families. Public-private partnerships have the ability to leverage the assets of public and private entities in terms of financial resources, expertise, and infrastructure in order to maximize and align investments in early childhood development. Federal funding authorized by this legislation will create incentives for more States to develop such partnerships and leverage further investment in young children and enhance existing partnerships in states.

The purpose of the Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 is to establish or enhance existing public-private partnerships that will strengthen investment in early childhood development by awarding grants to local community initiatives and programs that serve young children and their families.

The bill is fairly straightforward. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a competitive grant program to award grants to a public-private partnership, in each State that applies, which will leverage resources to supplement existing State and Federal funds. The partnership will then award subgrants to State and local community initiatives to improve access to and quality of early childhood development for children from birth through age five and their families. The partnerships will leverage funding from nonprofit or for-profit organizations, private entities and State government to invest in high quality early childhood development programs.

The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 authorizes $8 billion for fiscal year 2008, $10 billion for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as necessary in the following years. The Federal share represents 50 percent of total expenditures by a partnership in the first year, 40 percent in the second year and 30 percent in the outyears. I know I will hear that this cost is too large for the government to bear, but I would argue that the cost of not investing would be even greater. Children represent only a quarter of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future and each of our children deserves an opportunity to reach his or her potential.

The bill has been endorsed by America's Promise Alliance, First Focus, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, and the National Women's Law Center. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today, to introduce The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 to create and enhance public-private partnerships to strengthen investment in early childhood development programs, considering the needs of all children from birth to their entry in kindergarten. Investing in our youngest children is essential to promote their healthy development and school readiness. I pleased that two of my colleagues from Connecticut in the House of Representatives--Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and Congressman Joe Courtney--will introduce companion legislation today.

We have a body of knowledge on early childhood development that must be put into practice through policies that aid the crucial emotional, social and intellectual development that occurs in the first 3 years of life. Research indicates that investments in the early years of a child's life pay dividends later through improved health, readiness for school, and economic well-being. The return on investment also includes more successful transition to kindergarten; reduced special education and remedial education placements; better employment opportunities and higher earnings; and lower incidence of crime and dependence on public welfare. Our Nation's economy benefits from early childhood investments through a better prepared workforce, stronger growth, and a rising standard of living. Additionally, society will benefit from less crime, enhanced schools, and children who are better prepared to participate as citizens in a democratic society, as a result of increased investments in early childhood development.

Many States have an Early Learning Council or an advisory council that coordinates and aligns various programs serving children from birth to kindergarten entry. These entities facilitate collaboration among early childhood development activities in each State, but do not necessarily provide additional funding. Resources from Federal and State governments alone are not adequate to provide access to quality

early childhood development programs for all children.

Currently the Federal Government provides funding for a variety of early childhood development programs including the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and Head Start, which have been essentially flat funded in recent years. States supplement this funding and also provide funding for State and local prekindergarten programs and parent development and support programs, such as home visiting. However, the Federal and State resources alone are not enough to reach all of our Nation's young children. In order to get closer to the goal of providing access to quality programs for all children before they enter kindergarten, the private sector also plays an important role. In addition, the Federal Government should provide resources to reward innovation at the state and community level and to leverage additional resources for continued innovation.

In States such as Washington, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Arizona, Nebraska, Illinois, Vermont, and Virginia, public-private partnerships leverage resources to provide for the varied health and learning needs of children from birth to kindergarten entry and their families. Public-private partnerships have the ability to leverage the assets of public and private entities in terms of financial resources, expertise, and infrastructure in order to maximize and align investments in early childhood development. Federal funding authorized by this legislation will create incentives for more States to develop such partnerships and leverage further investment in young children and enhance existing partnerships in states.

The purpose of the Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 is to establish or enhance existing public-private partnerships that will strengthen investment in early childhood development by awarding grants to local community initiatives and programs that serve young children and their families.

The bill is fairly straightforward. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a competitive grant program to award grants to a public-private partnership, in each State that applies, which will leverage resources to supplement existing State and Federal funds. The partnership will then award subgrants to State and local community initiatives to improve access to and quality of early childhood development for children from birth through age five and their families. The partnerships will leverage funding from nonprofit or for-profit organizations, private entities and State government to invest in high quality early childhood development programs.

The Early Childhood Investment Act of 2007 authorizes $8 billion for fiscal year 2008, $10 billion for fiscal year 2009 and such sums as necessary in the following years. The Federal share represents 50 percent of total expenditures by a partnership in the first year, 40 percent in the second year and 30 percent in the outyears. I know I will hear that this cost is too large for the government to bear, but I would argue that the cost of not investing would be even greater. Children represent only a quarter of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future and each of our children deserves an opportunity to reach his or her potential.

The bill has been endorsed by America's Promise Alliance, First Focus, National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, and the National Women's Law Center. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nomination of Lieutenant General Douglas E. Lute, USA, to be assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 2 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The hearing will serve as an investigation of NASA Inspector General, Robert W. Cobb.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 10 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``An Examination of the Views of Religious Organizations Regarding Global Warming.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, June 7, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Bills: S. 185, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, Whitehouse, Durbin, Biden); S. 720, Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007 (Levin); H.R. 692, Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007; S. 535, Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act (Dodd, Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy); S.456, Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 (Feinstein, Hatch, Schumer, Specter, Biden, Kyl, Cornyn, Kohl).

II. Nominations: Leslie Southwick to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Robert James Jonker to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan.

III. Resolutions: S. Res. 171, Memorializing fallen firefighters by lowering the U.S. flag (Collins, Biden, Kennedy); S. Res. 82, Designating August 16, 2007 as National Airborne Day (Hagel, Graham, Sessions, Feinstein, Feingold); S. Res. 173, Designating August 11,2007 as National Marina Day (Stabenow).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing entitled ``Prevention of Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation in Federal Elections: S. 453'' on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Charles Schumer, United States Senator [D-NY]; The Honorable Barack Obama, United States Senator [D-IL].

Panel II: The Honorable Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, State of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; The Honorable Jack B. Johnson, County Executive, Prince George's County, MD, Upper Marlboro, MD.

Panel III: Hilary O. Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP], Washington, DC; John Trasvina, President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund [MALDEF], Los Angeles, CA; Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law School, New York, NY.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 7, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on Alternate Energy-Related Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf: Opportunities, Issues and Implementation of Section 388 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, DHS' Acquisition Organization: Who is Really in Charge?

Mr. President, every Memorial Day, words fight a losing battle against action. Each year, as spring warms into summer, we pause our lives and bow our heads in safety, and grope for words to honor the men and women who have made that safety possible. Inevitably, we fail; we say ``fallen'' when we mean ``killed''; we say ``sacrifice'' for those who died unwillingly, in great pain. I believe we do so because we want to find a register for our voice to match the heroism of their work, but, also, because high words shield us from the immediacy of death in war. Even as we remember, we can't help looking away.

But some lack that luxury. They are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are living the war we speak about. For 10 American soldiers in Iraq, Memorial Day was their last day.

Last week, the Senate was out of session in commemoration of Memorial Day, but now that we have returned, I want to honor the memory of one of those 10 soldiers: Army 1LT. Keith Neil Heidtman. He was a native of Norwich and a graduate of the University of Connecticut. He was 24 years old. On Monday, May 28, the helicopter he was copiloting crashed, likely brought down by enemy fire. Early the next morning, an Army chaplain brought the news to Lieutenant Heidtman's family.

For Maureen and Arthur Robidoux, his mother and stepfather, for Kerry Heidtman, his father, for Chris Heidtman, his uncle, and for Keely Heidtman, his older sister, memories will never fill the place of the live they loved. ``If you had to pick your son, this is who you would pick,'' said Chris Heidtman. ``He was handsome, he was bright''. A star baseball player and a distinguished ROTC cadet, Lieutenant Heidtman volunteered for pilot training upon his graduation in 2005.

He learned the value of service from his parents, both public servants themselves: his mother at the State Department of Children and Families, and his father in a State child-support program. His death reminds us that the highest service carries the highest cost. ``We're sending our finest, and we're losing them,'' said Lieutenant Heidtman's uncle.

So today we honor one of our finest, who wore our uniform and died long before his time. Next Memorial Day, his name will join the rolls of our dead. I pray that by then time will have soaked up his family's tears. Next spring, we will bow our heads and look for words to do him justice. I don't believe those words exist. His best memorial will be in our silence.

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007, which will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs. This bill is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 20,000 public, private, and nonprofit afterschool providers who are dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as many other national and local organizations.

More than 14 million children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. Between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., while parents are at work, kids are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors. To the contrary, students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. America's families rely on afterschool programs to give their children the opportunity to be engaged in high quality learning activities that will enhance their children's success in school and in life.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 is designed to do three things: enhance program quality and sustainability, address the obesity epidemic by including physical fitness and wellness programs in the list of possible programming activities, and encourage service learning. First, our bill provides States with tools designed to sustain high quality afterschool programs by allowing program grantees to renew their grants based on their program performance. The legislation also gives States the option to expand their technical assistance functions to further improve the quality of afterschool programs.

Second, this bill will increase opportunities for children and young people to be more physically active. As obesity reaches epidemic proportions in our society, allowing for such opportunities is critical in ensuring our children's overall health. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but among the most difficult to treat. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Physical activity and wellness programs are critical to our overall health and well-being.

Third, this bill encourages children to be involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills and provide opportunities for team work. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act will help build the character and work ethic of our children and youth.

Finally, it is of paramount importance that we adequately fund our afterschool programs. Currently, afterschool programs have served, at most, only 1.4 million children. It is critical that we provide more opportunities for youth to be engaged in high quality afterschool programming.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act provides a critical first step toward ensuring the health, safety, and education of our Nation's children. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator Ensign, to introduce the Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007, which will provide children with safe, healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs. This bill is endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more than 20,000 public, private, and nonprofit afterschool providers who are dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as well as many other national and local organizations.

More than 14 million children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade spend time unsupervised in the hours after school. Between the hours of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m., while parents are at work, kids are most likely to experiment with risky behaviors. To the contrary, students who regularly attend afterschool programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, violence, and pregnancy. America's families rely on afterschool programs to give their children the opportunity to be engaged in high quality learning activities that will enhance their children's success in school and in life.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2007 is designed to do three things: enhance program quality and sustainability, address the obesity epidemic by including physical fitness and wellness programs in the list of possible programming activities, and encourage service learning. First, our bill provides States with tools designed to sustain high quality afterschool programs by allowing program grantees to renew their grants based on their program performance. The legislation also gives States the option to expand their technical assistance functions to further improve the quality of afterschool programs.

Second, this bill will increase opportunities for children and young people to be more physically active. As obesity reaches epidemic proportions in our society, allowing for such opportunities is critical in ensuring our children's overall health. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but among the most difficult to treat. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Physical activity and wellness programs are critical to our overall health and well-being.

Third, this bill encourages children to be involved in service learning and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student achievement, lower drop out and suspension rates, develop workforce and leadership skills and provide opportunities for team work. The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act will help build the character and work ethic of our children and youth.

Finally, it is of paramount importance that we adequately fund our afterschool programs. Currently, afterschool programs have served, at most, only 1.4 million children. It is critical that we provide more opportunities for youth to be engaged in high quality afterschool programming.

The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act provides a critical first step toward ensuring the health, safety, and education of our Nation's children. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I have spoken about the amendment already, last evening. Again, I have talked to Senator Graham of South Carolina and the Senator from Massachusetts, the manager of this legislation on the floor. My understanding is, at an appropriate time we will have an opportunity to actually vote on these amendments.

Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to the immigration bill with my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, that relates to the parents of U.S. citizens. My amendment is simple in what it proposes but enormously important in what it seeks to accomplish.

It prevents this bill from dividing millions of American families by making it easier for U.S. citizens and their parents to unite. As currently written, this bill weakens the principle of family reunification in a way that is harmful to our nation and unfair to our fellow citizens.

Under current law, parents are defined as immediate relatives and exempt from green card caps. Yet this bill drastically and irresponsibly excludes parents from the nuclear family and subjects them to excessively low green card caps and an overly restrictive visa program.

This amendment rights this wrong by increasing the new annual cap on green cards for parents of U.S. citizens; extending the duration of the parent visitor visa; and ensuring that penalties imposed on overstays are not borne collectively.

The debate on this provision goes to the heart of how a family is defined in America. For millions of American citizens, parents are not distant relatives but absolutely vital members of the nuclear family who play a critical role, be it as grandparents providing care for their grandchildren while their parents are at work or as sources of strength and support for their bereaved or single children.

Ensuring that parents have every opportunity to unite with their children or live with them for extended periods is important not only because of their contribution to the nuclear family but also so that their children can support and care for them in sickness and in health.

We all know that sense of duty from our own lives. And for those of us who have lost our parents, we wish we had the opportunity to do so.

That is exactly why it has been our policy to date to allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their parents to come to this country without caps. Yet now we are told that parents are no longer immediate relatives and subject to caps. That parents no longer fit in the same category of relatives as minor children and spouses, an idea that millions of Americans would disagree with.

We are told that we must weaken that principle, thus disrupting the lives of countless law-abiding families, in the name of reducing ``chain migration.'' Well, that is a red herring. The truth is that once parents of citizens obtain immigrant visas, they usually complete the family unit and are unlikely to sponsor others.

That is why today we must do justice to the families of our fellow citizens who seek nothing more than to keep their families intact. This amendment does just that.

First, it increases the new green card cap from 40,000 to 90,000. Ninety thousand is the average number of green cards issued each year to parents who as I mentioned have to date been exempt from caps. Again this is just an average. Last year the number was 120,000.

It is abundantly clear that 40,000 green cards per year is an unreasonably low number. One of the goals of this bill is to clear the backlog on immigrant visa applicants which in some cases extends as far back as 22 years. If we don't allot sufficient numbers of green cards for parents in this bill, we risk creating a whole new category of backlog. Ninety thousand would meet this need.

To those who still think 90,000 is too high a number, I would also argue that it is simply not the place of the Senate to tell our fellow citizens that they should wait a year or two to see their parents. I would ideally not want the parents of any citizen of this country subject to caps but working within the framework of this bill, I believe 90,000 is entirely fair and reasonable.

Second, it extends the parent visitor visa to allow for an aggregate stay of 180 days per year and makes it valid for 3 years and renewable. These are already accepted timeframes for the validity of a visa. Madam President, 180 days is the length of a tourist visa; H-1Bs are valid for 3 years. This would allow those parents who do not want to permanently leave their countries of residence yet want to stay with their children in the U.S. for extended periods the ability to do so.

The current bill however limits the length of this visa to only 30 days per year--30 days. This is far too soon to pry parents away, particularly those who come to America for health reasons, or to care for their children during and after childbirth.

Many parents who live abroad, come to the United States at great expense. They often come from thousands of miles away just to be with their children and grandchildren. To limit them to a 30-day visit per year is simply unacceptable, especially when under a tourist visa, an individual can come to this country for 6 months.

To think that a parent can only be with his or her child or grandchild for 1 month out of 12 is simply unacceptable. Yet under this provision, a tourist can be in America six times longer than a parent of a citizen. That is not the America I know. That is not an America that cherishes family values.

Third, and finally, this amendment prevents collective punishment for parent visa overstays. Under this bill, if the overstay rate exceeds 7 percent for two years, either all nationals of countries with high overstay rates can be barred or the entire program can terminated.

Needless to say, this form of collective punishment is patently wrong and unjust. We should never punish law abiding individuals on account of the misdeeds of others.

Under this bill, for example, a sponsor could be barred from sponsoring his widowed mother because his father at some earlier date overstayed his visa. That is not the type of law we want on our books. That is not what this country is about. Nor is it about stopping thousands of parents from entering this country because of the misdeeds of some.

This my amendment will unite and strengthen the families of our fellow Americans and the fabric of our society, while upholding the best traditions of this great country. Because as we all know, families are the backbone of our country. Their unity promotes our collective stability, health, and productivity and contributes to the economic and social welfare of the United States.

My amendment does not strike at this bill's core; nor should it be a partisan issue. It is one of basic humanity and fairness for our fellow citizens.

What is at stake here is whether Congress should dictate to U.S. citizens if and when they can unite with their parents; if and when their parents can come and be with their grandchildren; if and when U.S. citizens can care for their sick parents here on American soil.

It is our duty to remove as many obstacles as we can for our fellow citizens to be with their parents. None of us would stand for anyone dictating the terms of that union to us. Why should we then apply a double standard for other citizens of this country? We must craft a law that is tough yet just.

I urge my colleagues not to think of this amendment in terms of numbers and caps, but in terms of its all too real and painful human impact for U.S. citizens.

I urge them to vote for this amendment and to take down the legislative barrier that this bill has stood up between our fellow citizens and their parents.

Again, at the appropriate time, I will ask for a recorded vote on this amendment. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for allowing us to get in the queue here so that when these matters come up for votes, we will be able to consider them.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce that I am voting against the Iraq war supplemental. I wish I didn't have to. I wish that I looked at Iraq and saw a stable, united government, a society free of terrorists and insurgents, and liberal democracy around the corner, if only we spent another billion dollars, or a hundred lives, or another year of waiting. I wish that our surge had, at long last, brought quiet to the tortured city of Baghdad. I wish that our President's policies were working.

I wish that I could look at Iraq and say, with a clear voice and a clean conscience: I share our President's confidence.

I wish; and even as I wish, the truth tells me otherwise. It tells me that 3,415 men and women in uniform have already sacrificed everything in Iraq, with no end in sight. It tells me that our military is being hollowed out by the Iraq experience, that two-thirds of our Army in the United States and 88 percent of our National Guard are forced to report: Not ready for duty, sir. It tells me that the American people demand an end to this war, and that the Iraqi people--for whose sake we toppled a dictator and established elections, precisely so we could hear their voice--demand the same.

I look at this bill and I don't see the truth in it. It exists in a world in which the President's plans are all meeting their mark. It gives us a status-quo strategy that has failed and failed again. It writes the President a blank check.

I had hoped that this supplemental would have passed with strong timetables for withdrawal, a unambiguous line in the sand. A responsible supplemental would have established definitive guidance for the President to transition the mission of our forces away from combat operations. It would have defined that mission clearly as counter- terrorism, training of Iraqi forces, and American force protection. It would have required a diplomatic and economic strategy in Iraq. And it would have held both the President and the Iraqi Government accountable. The Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill contained just such timetables, and mandated a responsible transition in mission, all backed by Congress's constitutional power of the purse.

But I cannot, in good conscience, support the half-measure that has taken its place. Instead of establishing realistic timetables, this supplemental does one thing only: It delays for 4 months, until funding runs out again, the decision we all know is coming: ultimately, combat troops will be redeployed from Iraq. This bill allows 4 more months of reckless endangerment of our troops and our national security.

A Senator shouldn't talk like that, some will say. I will be told I am declaring surrender right here on the Senate floor. Those are the words that will come from the other side of the aisle, big, grand words--surrender, triumph, defeat, victory--words that will blur and swirl together until they lose all mooring in reality. The President's supporters want to paint us a picture of a world in which we line up on a field of battle, the terrorists on one side and America on the other, and fight pitched warfare until one side waves the white flag.

But Iraq does not exist in that world. General Petraeus tells us that there will be no military solution; so does the Iraq Study Group. Senator Hagel, a war hero and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, tells us that ``there will be no victory or defeat in Iraq . . . Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there . . . Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.''

So I am not conceding defeat in Iraq--because there is no defeat to be conceded. There is only the hope that Sunni, Shia, and Kurd will reconcile in government, call off their militias and death squads, and turn against the foreign terrorists who have helped to spark this civil war. Our combat presence in Iraq cannot make that hope real. We can, and must, continue to assist the Iraqis in trying to reach these goals--but we cannot do it with military might alone. In the end, the challenges in Iraq can only be addressed through political means.

We are told, again and again, that we are failing to ``support the troops''--support that is subject to only the vaguest of measurements: ``messages'' and ``signals'' and ``resolve.''

We answer with fact. We answer with young lives lost and dollars squandered. We answer with the wisdom of James Baker and Lee Hamilton. We ask how any conceivable definition of ``support'' would leave our troops stranded in a civil war of strangers, with no mission or end in sight. And we say, unequivocally, that the only way to support our troops is to bring them home--now.

In fact, from the very outset of this war, it has been the President's defense policies that have hollowed out our Armed Forces and further threatened our national security. To reverse this negligence, Democrats have taken concrete action for our troops, again and again.

In 2003, I offered an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to add $322 million for critical protective gear identified by the Army, which the Bush administration had failed to include in its budget.

But it was blocked by the administration and its allies.

In 2004 and 2005, I authored legislation, signed into law, to reimburse troops for equipment they had to purchase on their own, because the Rumsfeld Pentagon failed to provide them with the body armor and other gear they needed to stay alive.

And last year, working with Senators Inouye, Reed, and Stevens, I offered an amendment to help address a $17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war-battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law.

That is support--support that can be measured, support that carries a cost beyond words.

And it is support that will continue, even if this supplemental fails, as it should. The Defense Department has ample funds to maintain our combat troops in Iraq until they can be withdrawn responsibly. The failure of this bill will not turn funds off like a spigot--the military simply does not work like that. Instead, our troops are supported by the more than $150 billion in the Pentagon's regular operations and maintenance account--and in the meantime, we might negotiate with the President for a responsible drawdown of combat troops. Any implication that we are stranding our soldiers in the desert--without fuel or bullets or rations--is totally specious.

And it follows that the President's Memorial Day deadline is totally arbitrary. The lives of our troops are more important than the President's vacation schedule. Why should he set timelines for Democrats but not for Iraqis?

Instead, let us vote down this bill and then join President Bush at the table, with the dignity befitting an equal branch of government, and the authority vested in us by the American people and our Constitution. Let us bring this disastrous war to a responsible end. And after 4 years of failed policy, let our voice be loud and unmistakeable: This far, and no further.

Mr. President, last week the Senate and House of Representatives voted to adopt a budget resolution for the upcoming fiscal year. I was proud to support this budget, which, in my view, represents an important first step towards returning our nation to a healthy and strong fiscal and economic course. Like the budget of any family or business, the federal budget provides a framework for responsibly meeting our nation's most important priorities while ensuring that we are living within our means. This year's budget restores much-needed fiscal discipline while better targeting our resources towards the investments that will best promote economic growth, national security, and broad-based opportunity.

First, the budget resolution reinstates pay-as-you-go rules, which require that any new spending or tax cuts be paid for with spending cuts or new sources of revenue--rather than simply adding the cost to the national debt for our children and grandchildren to repay with interest. These rules played a major role in helping us to achieve Federal budget surpluses in the late 1990s. The resolution also puts a stop to procedural abuses that had been used by the previous leadership in the Congress, notably the use of budget reconciliation protections-- designed for legislation that reduces the deficit--to ram through passage of budget-busting tax bills. These procedural improvements, combined with reasonable and responsible spending limits and revenue targets, provide for much-improved--and much-needed fiscal discipline on both the spending and revenue sides of the ledger.

In the 1990s, we saw how responsible budget policies and economic growth reinforced each other in a cycle that lifted Americans' standard of living across the board. Under the current administration, by contrast, Americans have seen the opposite effect, as irresponsible and poorly targeted fiscal policies have squandered the previous decade's fiscal gains while economic growth has accrued more and more narrowly to a smaller segment of the population. The Federal budget has declined from a surplus of $236 billion in 2000 to a deficit of $248 billion last year, while the national debt has grown from $5.6 trillion to $8.8 trillion. Over the same period, real median household income in our country has fallen by nearly $1,300.

Within the context of fiscal responsibility, the budget adopted last week puts in place a framework for restoring the investments necessary for broad-based economic growth and a return to budget surpluses. Rather than leaving middle-class families behind, it focuses on strengthening the middle class--the backbone of our economy.

This begins with promoting an agenda of innovation and entrepreneurship. The President's budget this year--for the second consecutive year--proposed the largest cut to education in the history of the Department of Education, along with cuts to research and development and technology transfer. It would be hard to find a worse idea than to cut the investments that allow our children to fulfill their maximum potential and drive our nation's economic growth now and in the future. This budget rejects the president's cuts, providing an additional $6.3 billion for education from preschool to graduate school. As I have said numerous times before, we can be confident that the investment we make here will be returned to us many times over.

This year's budget also directs more resources towards improving heath care quality and coverage, and reducing cost--an issue that affects every American family and businesses' bottom line. The resolution includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to help cover uninsured children and funds for health information technology and comparative effectiveness to help reduce skyrocketing costs.

Just as importantly, with our military being stretched to its limits, the budget includes full funding for restoring force readiness and adequately equipping our military personnel serving in harm's way. It also includes $3.6 billion above the Bush administration's budget to address the needs of veterans when they return home, because the brave Americans who have served our country deserve much better than the conditions that were revealed in the recent Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal.

The priorities laid out in the budget adopted last week contrast sharply with the agendas of recent years. Where the Bush administration and previous leadership in the Congress sacrificed all else at the altar of high-income tax cuts, this year's budget will keep taxes low while restoring the importance of education, health care, clean and renewable energy, and the needs of our military. This change is a welcome development that puts our Nation on a better, stronger, more prosperous, and more secure course for the future.