Floor Statements

Madam President, Benjamin Franklin once said: ``Genius without education is like silver in the mine.''

It is unquestioned that a college education is the single greatest weight on the scales of success.

Yet today, more and more working-class Americans are shut out from the promise and opportunity of a college education because the price is out of reach.

The Higher Education Access Act is a bill that will restore that promise to hundreds of thousands of American students.

Over the past 20 years, the cost of a college education has tripled. Yet the average family's median income has been virtually flat, and Federal student aid has not kept pace to make up the difference.

As a result, the goal of higher education has never been further out of reach for many working class students and their families.

Nearly 400,000 students who would otherwise have the credentials to go to college are shut out because they cannot afford it.

Imagine the doors to opportunity that a college degree would have offered these students, the benefits to our society and the benefits to our economy.

Over the course of their lifetime, a college graduate will earn $1 million more than a high school graduate. And the Department of Labor projects that almost 90 percent of the fastest-growing and best-paying jobs require at least some postsecondary education.

Too many students are losing out on all that opportunity. And too many students who do make it to college are shouldering the burden of more debt than ever before.

In Nevada, we are fortunate that the cost to attend one of our fine State universities is still relatively low. But even in Nevada, the average graduate has almost $17,000 in student loan debt.

There is nothing wrong with borrowing money to help pay for college. But when that debt reaches an average of tens of thousands of dollars, students are buried in debt before they even enter the workforce.

The Higher Education Access Act, the bipartisan reconciliation bill that we are today debating will help solve this critical problem.

It will do so in a comprehensive way by increasing grant aid, expanding the number of students eligible for Federal aid, making loan debt more manageable, and expanding loan forgiveness

options for those professions that we all recognize are important to society--teaching, social work, law enforcement, and health care.

The Higher Education Act includes three crucial components.

First, the bill includes a significant increase to the Pell grant, which has long been the foundation for Federal student aid.

Twenty years ago, the Pell grant covered half the cost of attendance of a 4-year public college. Today, it covers less than a third.

In 2000, President Bush campaigned on a promise to increase the Pell grant, but for 5 years, it remained at $4,050. After years of stagnation, one of the first acts of the Democratic Congress this year was to raise the Pell to $4,310.

This bill takes the next step, increasing the Pell grant to $5,100 next year and to $5,400 in 2012, and makes an additional 250,000 students eligible.

Second, the Higher Education Access Act caps monthly Federal student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income. This will translate to real benefits for graduates.

Under this new income-based repayment plan, a teacher in Clark County, NV who earns about $45,000 a year, would have his or her monthly payments reduced from $192 to $149, or 23 percent.

This bill also increases the amount of student income that can be sheltered from the financial aid process. The current levels amount to an unfair ``work penalty'' on working, part-time, and community college students, including the nearly 58,000 students in my own State who attend a community college.

Third, the Higher Education Access Act expands loan forgiveness options to encourage college graduates to pursue public service and careers in such high need areas as nursing, teaching, or law enforcement.

We have a tremendous teaching shortage in Nevada, particularly in Clark County. Clark County is one of the fastest growing school districts in Nation. They are building, on average, one new school every month. Each year, the district needs to hire as many as 1,000 new teachers to fill these buildings.

This loan forgiveness program would erase remaining student debt for new teachers after 10 years of teaching.

The large banks and lenders tell us that the provisions in this bill will impact the benefits that they provide to students. But they never tell us what these so-called benefits really mean for the average student.

This legislation, on the other hand, has clear and tangible benefits for students. The savings generated in this bipartisan bill, through modest cuts to lender subsidies, are sent right back to students in the form of $17 billion in new benefits. This would be the largest increase in college aid and student benefits since the GI bill.

Let me address the issue of lender subsidies. The Federal student loan program was established in 1965, before a student loan market even existed.

Back then, the Federal Government had to offer incentives and subsidies to encourage private financial institutions to provide education loans.

But times have changed. Today, there is no doubt that the student loan market is highly lucrative, and one need look no further than $225 million in compensation that the CEO of Sallie Mae received over a 5- year period to prove this point.

Yet the Federal Government continues to provide excessive subsidies and guarantees to lenders under the FFEL, Federal Family Loan Program. I support the FFEL program Our State's oldest university, the University of Nevada Reno, participates in the FFEL Program.

But without a doubt, the private student loan industry is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer. And, in my view, it is past time for the Congress to take a second look at these subsidies. This bill does that in a bipartisan, responsible, and reasonable way.

I thank Senators Kennedy and Enzi and the rest of the HELP Committee, as well as the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, for their work in crafting an important piece of legislation that meets the reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution.

Mr. President, passing the Higher Education Access Act is one of the most important steps this Congress could take. I can think of few things more important to our country's future than opening the door to a college education for millions of students and unlocking all the opportunity it affords.

I also want to amplify what I said this morning about the way this bill has been managed. The two managers of this bill, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, have done an exemplary job. There are some difficult issues to deal with, and they have done it in a graceful manner. They have allowed people to offer amendments and debate whatever they feel is appropriate. I would hope that in this little vote-athon we have, which is one of the quirks in the Senate rules--people may offer amendments when we are finished--people will keep in mind what we are trying to accomplish with this bill. Once this passes, they will be no longer trying. It will really help lots of students to go to school. Things are different than when I was a college student. I could work, as I did and many others did, and put myself through school with a little scholarship here and there. You can't do that anymore. You need, with rare exception, student aid. This bill will allow students more money to be educated.

As has been said here in the last several days on many occasions, a person getting a college education will earn over a lifetime $1 million more than a person with no college education. That really says it all. That is what this is about, to allow more people to be educated.

I appreciate very much the manner in which this bill has been managed. I think it is exemplary. It is how a bill should be managed in the Senate.

Will the Senator yield for a brief statement?

We are going to have a number of votes that could start in the next half hour or so, whenever the managers decide we should start. But my goal is to finish the voting tonight. We have this bill started. I would hope we could finish it tonight. We are going to give it the college try. All the amendments that will be offered, we are going to vote on them tonight. Many of them will be points of order, a 60-vote margin. I would hope people understand these are procedural votes. I hope we can dispose of them as quickly as possible, one way or the other. We have a lot to do. We have a cloture vote tomorrow on a very important appropriations bill. So we are going to move to that. I hope the distinguished Republican leader and I can work out arrangements so that we may not even need a vote tomorrow. If we can proceed to it on Monday, we would do that, whenever we finish education issues in this next cycle.

It is my understanding that there may even be something more we could do on education Monday. That is not quite worked out yet, but if it is, I would be happy to work out the schedule so that we can continue on education and perhaps go to the appropriations bill either Monday night or Tuesday sometime.

Again, we are going to do everything within our power to finish this bill tonight. I hope it is not going to be a night like we had Tuesday. I am confident it won't be, but it could go into the late evening tonight.

Madam President, we are now waiting for the distinguished Republican leader to come. As further evidence of your good work, we have a unanimous consent request here that will allow us to move Monday to the higher education extension which is so important. I, frankly, am elated that this is going to happen. This is a gift for the American people. I certainly hope the Senate understands how important it is that the two of you have worked this out. This is really remarkably good.

Again, we are waiting for the distinguished Republican leader.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. Monday, July 23, the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 264, S. 1642, the higher education extension, and that when the bill is considered, it be considered under the following limitations: that there be a total time of 8 hours of debate on the bill and amendments, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Kennedy and Enzi or their designees; that the only amendments in order, other than the committee-reported substitute, be a total of 12 relevant first-degree amendments relative to the matter of S. 1642 and/or the committee-reported substitute; there would be six for each manager, and an additional managers' amendment which has been cleared by the managers and the leaders, with no other amendments in order; that upon disposition of all amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to passage of the bill.

Prior to asking approval of this consent, I want the record to reflect, I love people who write left-handed. I have a son who is left- handed, and there was nothing meant to disparage left-handers when I said that.

Mr. President, there is a lot of good news today legislatively.

I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 159, H.R. 2272, the House competitiveness bill; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate companion, S. 761, as passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. President, let me say this is the end of a long haul to do a bill that is extremely important. This is a bipartisan bill. There are a number of people who have worked extremely hard on this legislation but no one harder than Senators Bingaman and Alexander. I apologize for only mentioning their names. I am sure there are many others who worked just as hard as they did. I remember they were the first two who talked to me about it, and there has been a lot of time spent on this legislation.

It is a bill that was passed in the Senate with little opposition. I am so happy we can now go to conference. The House has already passed something. We can come back with a bill that I think will really help productivity in our country and help the educational aspects of students, especially in the scientific fields.

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

Mr. President, we have reviewed this. This side will be willing to accept the amendment.

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

If the Senator will withhold, we are going to try to work our way through these amendments. We will see how many more people have to offer. We are not going to try to match the amendments offered by the minority. They have a right to offer these amendments. This is a very important piece of legislation. We think we should work our way through it. We are going to work on this for a little while longer. I have already indicated through the floor staff to my distinguished friend the Republican leader that if we don't finish this pretty soon-- it is 8 o'clock now--we will just come back tomorrow and work on it. This could complicate things; people should understand that. Tomorrow we are obligated to have a vote on the motion to proceed to Homeland Security appropriations. If that is granted, that 30 hours will run through until the weekend. That is the process we are in. So if people want to continue offering these amendments, we will do it for a while tonight until people feel that they have offered enough in a way to get attention and focus attention away from this very good bill.

I have come to the floor several times to talk about what a great bill this is and how well it was worked by the two managers. I hope we won't spoil it. We are not going to offer any amendments. Our imagination is as good as yours, but we are not going to do that. The decision has been made. We are going to work on this bill and try to get it completed.

There has been a point of order made. My friend from South Carolina wishes to make a motion.

Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished Senator from Maine to withhold for a brief statement.

Mr. President, I have talked to Senators on both sides of the aisle. I think it is appropriate we finish this legislation tonight, or in the morning, whatever the case will be. But we are going to continue working tonight. I think that is the most appropriate thing to do.

The one thing I have asked for--and I hope the minority can complete that--is that we should have a finite list of amendments, so we at least can get that done and find out how many amendments we have to work through. I would hope the minority would work on that to see if we can come up with a finite list of amendments before final passage.

I apologize to my friend for the interruption.

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the Salazar amendment, the vote be vitiated, stricken from the Record, and that we not have a rollcall vote on the amendment that was offered by my distinguished counterpart, Senator McConnell.

Mr. President, I do say there has been--I say this with everyone here--I said a few things today when no one was here. But I complimented these two managers of this bill. They have been exemplary, the way they--with two different political philosophies, we all know that, but they have worked together, not just this year but for a number of years, to put out some good legislation in that committee.

I do not want to make any of the chairmen and ranking members feel bad, but this committee has a lot of good work they have finished and they will be able to bring to this floor things we have been waiting for for years. I appreciate the intensity of everyone's feelings on issues.

I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments remaining in order on this piece of legislation subject to second-degree amendments be the Coleman amendment, innocent child; Graham amendment, no Pell grants for drug dealers; Cornyn amendment, H-1B visas; Sununu amendment, tuition deduction permanence; DeMint amendment, adoption tax permanence; Ensign amendment, Social Security for illegal immigrants; Dole amendment, voter ID; Kyl amendment, AMT repeal.

We are going to be very selective in our second-degree amendments. We hope we can move through this very quickly.

I have told the Republican leader we definitely will have an amendment on No. 6. I told everybody that. You already have that amendment. We will look at these others. I haven't seen those. But you will have plenty of time to look at them. They will be relating to the subject matter of the amendment that is offered.

Mr. President, we will not prevent votes on these, subject to second-degree amendments and points of order.

I would hope on this bill and any other bill.

On this bill, yes.

If my friend would withhold.

Would the Chair withdraw the McConnell amendment?

I think we have the list here. We do not personally care. We do not care what order, so it is up to you. You have the next amendment.

Mr. President, some of my Members have criticized we are not enforcing the 10-minute vote rule--10 minutes and a 5-minute leeway period. We are going to strictly enforce that. We have a lot to do tonight, so everyone should know if they are not here, after the 10 minutes, plus the 5 minutes, the vote will be terminated. The votes will be a total of 15 minutes.

Amendment No. 2355

Mr. President, I have conferred with my Republican friends. It will be in everyone's interest if the votes be 10 minutes. That is the vote will be cut off at 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.

Mr. President, I hope people will stay in the Chamber. It makes it very difficult for staff if they are in and out of here. We have as many as seven more votes, eight more votes. Probably seven. If they are willing to stay here, we can whip through them in an hour; otherwise, it is going to take a long time.

Let's proceed with the underlying amendment.

Amendment No. 2341

Madam President, we have in wrap-up the agreement that we are not going to do the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to homeland security. We will proceed to that legislation as soon as we complete the additional education bill we are going to work on on Monday. We are working really hard to try to not have a lot of votes Monday night. The first vote will be 5:15. Under the order entered, there could be as many as 12 or 15 votes. We hope that doesn't occur, but it is possible. There will be multiple votes Monday. We may not be able to complete them all Monday. We hope we can, but that is where we are.

Tuesday, we will start the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

I tell all Members that we have now 2 weeks left in this work session. As I have indicated from the first day, we are going to do our best to have everybody out of here 2 weeks from tomorrow. We have a lot to do. We have to complete homeland security, work on SCHIP and complete that, we have two conference reports, one on which Senator Lieberman today had a real conference. Democrats and Republicans appointed to the conference sat down to see what they could work out on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Progress was made. Senator Lieberman said he thinks that can be done early next week.

And then I had a number of conversations today with the distinguished Republican leader. We are where we are on the ethics lobbying reform. I wish we could approach it a different way. That is not going to work out, it appears. We are going to attempt to complete that also before we finish this work period.

We have a lot to do, and I know there are things people want to do a week from this weekend. We are going to try to see that they can do that. There are no guarantees. We have to finish this legislation or we will work into the August recess. Those are the choices we have. There will be no votes tomorrow.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order governing consideration of S. 1642 be modified to provide that at the time available under the order, 2 hours be under the control of the managers, with the time equally divided and controlled; that time on first-degree amendments be limited to 30 minutes each, equally divided and controlled; that relevant second-degree amendments be in order and must be relevant to the amendment to which offered, and that an additional time of 15 minutes be available for any second-degree amendments which may be offered, equally divided and controlled; that upon the use or yielding back of all the time and the disposition of all amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, with no further amendments in order after all time is expired, with the other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, July 24, upon the disposition of S. 1642, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2638, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

I now ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion be withdrawn.

Madam President, I understand that H.R. 980 has been received from the House and is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Madam President, I ask for its second reading but object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Friday, July 20; that on Friday, following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time of the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; and there then be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 15 minutes each; that during morning business, Senator Dorgan be recognized for up to 30 minutes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Journal of proceedings be corrected to conform to the earlier agreement to vitiate the vote relative to amendment No. 2356.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate today, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, late this morning, I sent a letter to the distinguished minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell. I addressed the letter ``Dear Mitch,'' and I will read the letter.

There are no more solemn decisions facing Members of

Congress than the conduct of the war and the placing of our

troops in harm's way. As you know, more than 3,600 brave

Americans have lost their lives and more than $400 billion

has been expended on the war in Iraq, which has now moved

into its fifth year, with no end in sight. Yet Senate

Republicans have chosen to prevent an honest debate, an

action on legislation to provide an Iraq strategy that will

allow us to responsibly redeploy our troops and refocus our

attention on the very real threat posed by al-Qaida. This is

partisan obstruction that I fear will make us less, not more,

secure, and I urge you to reconsider your course.

Today's headlines confirm the importance of allowing the

Senate to consider amendments to change the course in Iraq

and refocus our resources so we can more effectively wage the

war on terror. The news reports indicate that the violence in

northern Iraq has escalated at the same time the Director of

National Intelligence released a new assessment that al-Qaida

has regenerated key elements of its homeland capability. As

long as our troops are mired in policing an Iraq civil war,

they cannot focus on the enemy that attacked us nearly 6

years ago, an enemy that, regrettably, has regenerated its

attack capacity since 9/11.

Furthermore, contrary to your previous assertions, there is

a long, bipartisan tradition of allowing Senators to offer

defense-related amendments on the Defense authorization bill

without the obstruction Senate Republicans are employing

today. The record also clearly shows that both Senate

Democrats and Republicans have recently foregone the

opportunity to block action on important Iraq-related

amendments.

For example, just last year the Senate voted up or down on

two Iraq-related amendments on the Defense authorization

bill. Additionally, Senate Democrats did not place a 60-vote

hurdle in front of Republican amendments to strike Iraq

policy language in the Iraq supplemental spending bill, nor

did votes on final passage of the Iraq supplemental require

60 votes.

Therefore, I renew the proposal I offered to you recently

to permit the Senate to act on a series of amendments

pertaining to Iraq. Under my proposal, the Senate would hold

up-or-down votes on the bipartisan amendments offered by

Senators Levin and Reed, Lugar and Warner, Salazar and

Alexander, and Nelson and Collins. There are other amendments

Republican and Democratic Senators wish to offer related to

Iraq, and I would be willing to work with you to ensure these

amendments also receive up-or-down votes.

For the sake of our troops and the American people, I hope

you reconsider your decision to obstruct Senate action on

critical amendments that would change the course of the war

in Iraq.

We have completed a vote, yet another example of an Iraq-related amendment with a majority vote. We didn't demand a 60-vote margin on Cornyn. It is another example of how amendments should be handled; that is, with a simple majority vote.

The American people deserve up-or-down votes, yes or no: Vote on the amendment. The Levin-Reed amendment is a bipartisan amendment. For me, one of the most significant paragraphs in that legislation was authored by Senator Hagel of Nebraska. It basically says we need to have the United Nations involved in this intractable civil war. It is a wonderfully written paragraph that strengthens this bipartisan amendment.

We have three Republican cosponsors of this amendment.

A vote on this bipartisan amendment will be a vote to change course. A ``no'' vote would be a vote to stay the course, to continue the President's failed strategy indefinitely.

President Bush's term of office is winding down. We should not have to wait until he completes his term of office before we change course on this war in Iraq. A ``yes'' vote on this bipartisan amendment would finally bind President Bush to responsibly reduce combat operations and return our focus on the real and growing threats we face. That is why I, once again, request unanimous consent to move to an up-or-down vote on Levin-Reed, along with the amendments my Republican colleagues wish to offer and other Democrats who wish to offer amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2088 be withdrawn and at 6:30 p.m. today the Senate vote on the Levin-Reed amendment, No. 2087, with the time between now and then equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. President, either yes or no on this?

Regular order.

I will be complete in a matter of minutes. We will have a filibuster. He can speak for as many hours as he wants or minutes he wants. We are now at the time when the time for speeches has ended. It is time for voting. We want a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. That is what we want. We have had a lot of good words from the other side of the aisle. We want some votes, and that is what this is all about. This is not the time for reserving. Voting--that is what we want.

Yes, once again what we have seen with my friend from Mississippi, and he is my friend--we have seen Republican leadership resort to technical maneuvers to block progress on this crucial amendment. It would be one thing for Republicans to vote

against this amendment. It is their right to do so. If they honestly believe stay the course is the right strategy, they have the right to vote no. But now Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring this war to a responsible end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops. They are denying us an up-or-down vote, yes or no, a vote on the most important issue our country faces today.

I am speaking today for the American people; 67 percent of the American people think the surge has been a failure--Democrats; not even a majority of Republicans favor the surge. Of course, a significant majority of Independents recognize that the surge has not been good. We are speaking for the American people on this bipartisan amendment.

We have no choice, as I have indicated earlier, but to stay in session. The Republicans have a right to talk. Let them talk. It is their filibuster. But we will continue to speak in spite of that. When they finish their filibuster, we will still be speaking, continue speaking out on behalf of our troops and all Americans--all Americans: Democrats, a majority of the Republicans, and the Independents--to continue requesting consent for an up-or-down vote on our amendment to end this war.

I don't want to make any more calls to the families in Nevada who have lost a loved one. Tens of thousands of our bold, brave Americans have been injured, wounded--a third of them grievously. When we hear that there was an improvised explosive device and two soldiers were killed, it doesn't talk about the maiming of other soldiers. Thousands--thousands of American troops have lost multiple limbs. We have heard from the experts about the head trauma. I can't get out of my mind my trip to Walter Reed, where a woman said: I have been in the military--I have been in the Army for 22 years. I have a master's degree. My specialty was numbers. I worked in the Pentagon with numbers. She said: I don't even know my own phone number. She said: I have never had my skin pierced, but I have been knocked down; I have been in these explosions numerous times. I have no mind anymore.

That is what this amendment is all about--to change course. Is it necessary we wait 60 more days until this magic day in September to change course? How many more Americans soldiers are going to be killed? How many are going to be maimed, wounded, lose their arms, lose their minds? So we have no choice but to stay in session and continue speaking out on behalf of our troops and all Americans, to continue requesting consent for an up-or-down vote on this amendment.

Our troops in Baghdad are 8 hours ahead of us here on the east coast. As we begin our debate in earnest tonight, our troops are going to be waking up. They will be waking up to the 1,582nd day of this war. They will wake up, and it is very hot in Iraq this time of the year. They are a long ways away in some foreign land we call Iraq, far from their families, and facing, every minute of the day, danger.

This is not a war where the troops gather and face each other. This is a war in an urban setting, most of the time, where people are blown up driving vehicles up streets buying groceries in a marketplace. What happened yesterday? In a place that there had been no violence, more than 100 were killed and more than 200 injured. The picture in the paper--there is a hole where that bomb went off as big and deep as this Chamber we are in today.

The violence is escalating. The new report is out. It was leaked last week; it is out today. ``Al-Qaida stronger,'' so says the report. The President disagrees, but that is what the report says. Can't have it both ways.

So our valiant troops are going to wake up with this war facing them--more than any one of us can understand, with the exception of maybe Senator Webb, Senator Kerry, maybe John McCain--I am sorry if I missed others--Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens. Senator Hagel, of course--with his brother--fought in Vietnam. They are going to wake up, as I said, far from their families, facing constant danger, for what? For what? Mr. President, 69 percent of the Iraqi people don't want us there. They are saying we are doing more harm than good. Al Maliki said a couple of days ago he can do without us. We can leave whatever time we want. They can handle the situation with the billions and billions of dollars we have spent training Iraqi troops.

We as Senators owe it to each of our men and women in Iraq to debate the war openly and honestly, and we owe it to all Americans to finally vote for a responsible end to the war that has been so long in coming. I hope by the time this night is through and dawn has broken that we will have the opportunity to vote.

We are willing to vote before that. Whenever we have an opportunity, we are going to ask reasonably that we have a vote on the bipartisan amendment. It is the right thing to do. It is what the American people deserve.

We are spending, now, $12 billion a month. Is that enough to get our attention? We are trying to do other things. What are we trying to do? Get health care for kids. The President is very concerned about these appropriations bills which we are going to try to pass. Where is the money to pass them, giving the American people what they deserve? It has been taken in the sands of Iraq, to the tune of more than a half a trillion dollars.

I yield the floor.

I will not do that. I am happy to yield for a question.

I say to my friend, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, I don't have to go home. People call me. I talk to my brothers. They tell me what they think is wrong. I talk to my friends. I have tried every weekend when I have some time and I am here--I try to reach some people in Nevada I haven't talked to in a while. They say exactly what my friend from Vermont says: Get us out of there. Get us out of there.

That is what this Levin-Reed amendment is all about, to change course in Iraq. The American people deserve that.

I am happy to yield for a question.

I say to my friend, during the years you have mentioned, there have been democratically controlled Senates, Republican controlled Senates, but it doesn't matter who is controlling the Senate, we have always done these bills with simple majority votes.

For example, I can remember last year we had one vote, as I recall, on minimum wage because it required 60 votes to waive a budget point of order. So this new thing about 60 votes on everything is something that has been ginned up in the minds of people who want to avoid votes to change the course in Iraq.

That is what it is all about. The war is not going well. We all know that. We need to sit back and understand that it needs to change course. There is a column written today, I read it, op-ed about President Bush being stubborn. And he is. We all know that. That is not all together always a bad trait.

But, boy, I will tell you, he is sure showing his streak of stubbornness on this. He was unwilling to listen to anyone who disagreed with him, and there are a number of people who have been dumped from the administration as a result. Someone who suggested the war would cost $150 to $200 billion, Lindsey, he was gone quick.

We had one of our good generals who suggested we needed a lot more troops there. Out the door he went. We could go through a list of people who disagreed with the President who hit the road.

I would hope that on this issue, when so many people all across this country, on a bipartisan basis, agree that something needs to change in Iraq, my friends, the Republicans, recognize that they also have responsibility to the American people more so than the President.

Now, I would say this. My friend, Senator Lott, is still here. I am going to yield the floor and whoever grabs the floor can have it. I say to my friend, Senator Lott, who has always been a gentleman to me in the many areas we have worked together here: This was a time that I wanted a ``yes'' or ``no'' response. He is a real pro in here. He knows that he can get the floor again to explain whatever his position was. This was in the middle of my speech. That is why I followed the rules.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, the surge has now been going for 6 months. More than 600 Americans have been killed, thousands have been wounded, costing our country $60 billion.

The National Intelligence Estimate which was issued today--was leaked by someone last week--is very clear: There are two al-Qaidas now; there used to be one. There is al-Qaida in Iraq, totally separate and apart from the other al-Qaida that bin Laden led.

Where did it come from? It came from the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country, the invasion of Iraq.

My friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky, should understand, as a result of that invasion we now have a civil war raging in the Palestinian areas of Lebanon, the country of Israel has been basically ignored during this administration, and we have Iran thumbing their nose at us.

For the information of my friend from Kentucky, there would not be a civil war in Iraq, there already is one. It is an intractable civil war. We Americans are there in spite of the fact that the Iraqis, by an almost 70 percent margin, 69 percent to be exact, say we are doing more harm than good; they want us out of there.

The Prime Minister of Iraq said 3 days ago that he could do fine without us. Anytime we want to leave, his security would take over.

Now, wake up America? America is awake. They understand very clearly we have a situation where we have a President that will be in office only another 17 months, and they want the war to end before he leaves office. They want to change the course in Iraq which has caused the deaths of almost 3,700 Americans, the wounding of tens of thousands of Americans, cost us over half a trillion dollars.

That is what Americans want. They are awake.

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

Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the presence of absent Senators and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Levin amendment occur at 11 a.m. today.

I will yield in 1 second.

Mr. President, I would further say that we are going to have another vote sometime later this morning. I have talked to both majority and minority, and there is no time that is appropriate. So I arbitrarily am going to state at this time that we are going to have another vote. It will not occur before 5 a.m. It could be a little before, a little after that, depending on what is happening on the floor. We will have another vote, but it won't be before 5 this morning.

I would further state, and I should have cleared this with the minority leader, and I did not, I would ask that the last 20 minutes prior to the 11 o'clock vote be left for Senator McConnell, 20 to the hour would be the minority leader, 10 to the hour would be me. We each would get 10 minutes.

I think that is true. We have the Senate Prayer Breakfast, we have a steering committee meeting at 9. I think people have other things scheduled. I think we have done the votes tonight, so that should work out fine.

That is true. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 11, that Senator McConnell and I be recognized as I have indicated, and that we will proceed with the debate on this issue during the morning hour.

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

Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

First, Mr. President, I extend my appreciation--I speak for all Senators, Democrats and Republicans--for the help we received this past 2 days from the employees who are working in the Capitol complex. Hundreds and hundreds of employees are here every day. They were here all night last night, most of them with little or no rest. This great facility would not operate every day but for them.

I am especially fond of and protective of the Capitol Police because I was one. But they are only the vessel about which I speak today, because it is not only the Capitol Police--and they worked long and hard--but it is the custodians, it is everyone including the valiant staff we have seated before the Presiding Officer. If we were asked-- any one of 100 Senators--how to get something done here without them, we couldn't do it. I have been here for a quarter of a century. I could be here for a quarter of a century more and still couldn't understand how their important work is done. Again, speaking for all Senators, I say to all who work here in the Capitol, we appreciate very much your time and effort.

I hope these past 2 days have shined a bright light on how important our work is here in the Senate. The American people have spoken so many different ways. We are, of course, faced every day with the never- ending polls that this organization takes, that organization takes, and a lot of times there is some variance in those poll numbers--but not the last couple of months. The American public opposes the surge; they are opposed to the war; they want our valiant troops to come home.

As I wrote to the distinguished Republican leader yesterday:

There are no more solemn decisions facing Members of

Congress than the conduct of war and the placing of troops in

harm's way.

Mr. President, that is true. This I sincerely believe.

Last night we had an event at 9 o'clock in the park. A Congressman by the name of Patrick Murphy spoke. He is from Pennsylvania. He was in Iraq, fighting as a soldier, a few years ago. He is now a Member of Congress. He talked about the need for us to bring home his comrades, the people who served with him. When he came home, 18 others, those other paratroopers in his unit, were dead.

What we are dealing with here is most important, most serious, and that is why we have been at it for 2 days nonstop. This is one of the most important decisions Members of Congress will ever be required to make, especially given the stakes involved, the stakes in the Middle East, in Iraq, for our military and for our national security.

We must proceed carefully and deliberately but proceed we must. The actions we take here can force a change, a change in President Bush's badly failed Iraq policy. That is what the American people expect the Senate to do, not simply to walk in lockstep as the President continues to walk down this disastrous path, but to finally change direction. That is our goal. That is what we must do and that is what the Levin- Reed amendment does.

The amendment recognizes what General Petraeus and all the experts have said from the very beginning: There is no military solution to the chaos in Iraq. The amendment recognizes that the more U.S. military forces caught policing the civil war in this country we call Iraq, it is not to the interests of the United States and it is not in the interests of bringing stability to Iraq. The amendment recognizes we have an enduring interest in Iraq, and certainly in the Middle East, and we will not abandon those interests.

Levin-Reed gives the President no choice but to change course. Levin- Reed requires the President take the steps to responsibly end the war that the country and our brave men and women in uniform demand and deserve. Bring them home. Let them come home. Levin-Reed sets a firm start date and a firm end date to transition the mission to begin the reduction of U.S. forces beginning 120 days after enactment, and to be completed by April 30, 2008.

Levin-Reed limits the United States mission to limit it to counterterror, training, and force protection operations after April 30, and requires that the reduction in forces be part of a comprehensive diplomatic, regional, political, and economic effort, including the appointment of an international mediator.

I am compelled to defend the authors of this amendment. My friend, my counterpart, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, ridiculed, belittled this amendment. Those of us who have served in the Senate know that any time Carl Levin deals with legislation, there is nothing--nothing--left for guesswork. Literally every ``i'' that should be dotted, every ``t'' that should be crossed, every comma that should be in a sentence, every semicolon that is placed there once in a while, will be in that legislation. I say this with all my friends here in the Senate, no one is a better legislator than Carl Levin. All who have served in the Senate have dealt with him. There is no way you can give him something and say, Is this OK with you, but he will say, No, I have to read it. After he reads it, he has to study it.

We all know what the Levin-Reed amendment talks about. What a combination. This good man from Michigan, who has devoted his life to public service and has spent his Senate career in the Armed Services Committee, teamed up with a graduate of West Point, Jack Reed, to whom we all look for advice militarily. How many times has he been to Iraq, 8, 10 times?

Why is it important that Jack Reed went to Iraq? Because he served at West Point with many of the people over there now who are officers. He can get information there that none of the rest of us can get. What a combination. What does this combination say to the American people? That there must be an end date to what is going on in Iraq.

Their amendment, I repeat, says there must be redeployment starting in 120 days. That is pretty straightforward.

Mr. President, I will use leader time if my time runs out.

It also says that redeployment will start in 120 days; that on April 30, 2008, the forces left in Iraq according to our military will be used for counterterrorism activities, training the Iraqis, and protecting our assets in Iraq. There is not much to speculate on what that

means. Of course, the military will set what parameters will be used in those different duties they have, but the military--that is what they do. So this amendment of Senators Levin and Reed is very understandable, it is direct and to the point. It is a simple, straightforward, responsible amendment. It strikes the right balance between military and diplomatic solutions. It allows our Nation to reduce its large combat footprint in Iraq and refocus on the enemy that attacked the Nation nearly 6 years ago.

For the American people, the surge has had far too long to determine whether it will work. Six months, 600 dead Americans, untold numbers wounded, $60 billion. This amendment allows our Nation to reduce its large combat footprint in Iraq. It gives our troops the strategy they need to succeed in a very difficult environment. It is supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people, it is supported by a bipartisan majority in the Senate and, most important, it is binding.

President Bush has proven beyond any doubt that if we simply express opinion and pass ``Sense of the Senate'' legislation, if we do not put teeth behind our legislation, he will ignore us.

It could not be clearer that if we give this President a choice, he will stay hunkered down in Iraq until the end of his failed Presidency.

The National Intelligence Estimate report released yesterday amplifies the fact that the war in Iraq has taken our attention and resources away from the growing threats we face around the world. We cannot keep marking time while President Bush's failed war plan continues to crumble.

We can vote to end the war right now. Democrats are united in our commitment to do so and our resolve has never been stronger. More and more Republicans have come out to publicly break from the President's endless war strategy. They deserve credit for doing so. I commend and applaud them. But their words will not end the war; their votes will.

After 52 months of war; after more than 3,600 American dead; after tens of thousands more wounded; after $500 billion of our tax dollars spent; after chaos in Iraq has become entrenched; after no meaningful signs of progress by the Iraqi Government; after the President's own intelligence reports indicate that the war has made us less safe and al-Qaida is gaining strength; after a troop escalation has only led to more violence; after all of this, after all of this, isn't it time to choose a new path? The answer is yes.

Let's choose that new path now. Let's finally answer the call of the American people. I urge my Republican colleagues to end this filibuster. I urge them to stop blocking a vote on this crucial war- ending amendment. By voting yes on cloture, we can make this the first day of the end of the war.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members would vote from their desks. I further ask unanimous consent that the Chaplain give our daily player immediately following my remarks, which I have completed. The reason is, otherwise, he would do it at 1 o'clock. If ever there were a time for prayer, it would be before this very important vote.

I ask unanimous consent that we vote from our desks. I have cleared this with the Republican leader, and ask that the Chaplain be now called upon to render the prayer.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the Levin-Reed amendment.

Mr. President, this has been a long week, and it is hard to comprehend, but it is only Wednesday, Wednesday morning. We have now been in session continuously for 2 days. On Monday, I submitted a simple request for consent to proceed to an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense authorization bill. As I have stated, this amendment provides a clear, binding responsible path to change the U.S. mission and reduce our combat presence in Iraq. It honors the sacrifice of our troops, reflects the will of the American people, and lets us rebuild and focus our military on the growing threats we face throughout the world.

Regrettably, Republicans chose to block this amendment. They chose to block a bipartisan amendment, Mr. President, to deny the American people an up-or-down vote. They chose to continue protecting their President instead of our troops, no matter the cost to our country.

In contrast, my Democratic colleagues and a number of brave Republicans came to the floor of the Senate throughout the night to make our case. I am proud of what they have said and what they have done. We spent 2 days showing America that we are not going to back down, we are going to continue to fight, and that if President Bush and his allies in Congress refuse to budge, we will continue to show them the way.

How could we possibly shrink from this fight? How could we possibly try to avoid this fight? As we speak, many of our 160,000 men and women serving in Iraq are wrapping up another day of war, real war on foreign sands. For them, it was yet another day caught in an intractable civil war, Sunni versus Shia, Shia versus Sunni, Shia versus Shia, Sunni versus Sunni, and--what other combinations can we come up with--with our troops caught in the crossfires, our troops trying to protect the Shias, Sunnis, and the Kurds, and all of them after our troops.

As the Iraqi people have said in poll after poll, about 70 percent of them think we are doing more harm in their country than good.

The high temperature today in Iraq was about 115 degrees, and our troops were wearing about 100 pounds of equipment. This was the 1,583rd day of the war. They have served us each and every day with courage, despite being taken to war falsely, prematurely, and recklessly. They have served us each and every day with courage and valor, despite a President who still lacks a plan for success. They have served us each and every day with courage, despite too many in Congress who remain unwilling to change course.

Those 160,000 troops deserve more. They and all Americans deserve a debate and votes on legislation that will finally provide them a strategy to honor their great sacrifice.

As we have just seen, a bipartisan majority of the Senate supports Levin-Reed. A bipartisan majority of the Senate supports a binding new policy that would responsibly bring the war to an end so we can return our focus and resources to the real threats and challenges our great country faces. Yet a Republican minority blocked a vote on the bipartisan amendment that would deliver that new course, and instead they chose to stand behind the President and this tragic failure he has led.

So today I am filled with a mixture of pride and regret--pride for my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, who have risen to this crucial cause in giving the American people the debate they deserve, yet regret for my colleagues who have blocked the will of the people and the majority of this Congress. I believe the will of the people must be heeded, and I believe this critical vote must proceed.

In an effort to make progress on this issue and this bill, I will, therefore, request unanimous consent to move to a vote on the four Iraq amendments to the Defense authorization bill outlined yesterday morning in my letter to Senator McConnell. My unanimous consent request is eminently fair. It would provide up-or-down, yes-or-no votes on three other bipartisan Iraq amendments in exchange for the same on Levin- Reed.

Under my proposal, we would vote on these Iraq amendments: Levin- Reed, Lugar-Warner, Salazar-Alexander, and Nelson-Collins. In addition, I also indicated in my letter that I am prepared to agree to up-or-down votes on other amendments as well.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers the following Iraq amendments, they be subject to majority votes: the pending Levin-Reed amendment, the Byrd-Clinton deauthorization amendment, the Warner-Lugar amendment No. 2208, the Salazar-Alexander Iraq Study Group amendment, the Nelson-Collins amendment No. 2124, and Senator Landrieu's al-Qaida amendment.

Mr. President, this is not a movie in which we are involved. This is a debate on one of the most serious issues this country has ever faced. Thousands of Americans have been killed in Iraq, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we are depleting the National Treasury by more than half a trillion dollars. But my distinguished friend's statement clearly indicates what has happened in Iraq since we last took up this debate.

We passed the Defense authorization bill last November. We had Iraq amendments then. There were no 60-vote margins. But in the last 7 months since that debate took place, this war has gone in the wrong direction--in the wrong direction. That direction is the way that President Bush has managed this war. That is why all of a sudden now that 7 months has gone by with thousands more Americans being wounded, and hundreds and hundreds more being killed, suddenly this is an issue that requires 60 votes.

If there were ever a picture, look at what happened last November and look what happened today. Of course, they need 60 votes because all these amendments would pass with simple majority--all of them, every one of them telling the President he should change course. The difference is how to tell the President to change course. The Levin- Reed amendment did it by mandating a timeline.

I am disappointed to see that my friend is leading the Republicans to obstruction over progress. I understand the Senate rules. Other than this man sitting behind me, I think I know the rules about as well as anyone in this Chamber. I understand the Senate rules allow for minority filibuster over the will of the majority, but that is not the tradition of this bill, and it should not be the path that is chosen given the stakes involved.

But because Republicans continue to block votes on important amendments to the Defense authorization bill, we can make no further progress on Iraq and this bill at this time.

Progress is also blocked by two other troubling realities. First of all, more than 300 amendments have been filed. We have not been able to get a finite list of amendments for consideration. Majority and minority staffs of the Armed Services Committee have been

unable to work in a bipartisan manner to clear large numbers of routine amendments due to the objections of one or two Members on the other side of the aisle. The chairman and ranking member have been able to clear amendments in this fashion for as long as I can remember, but not this year, not with this handful of dedicated obstructionists--not all but a few.

Seated in this front row is one of the managers of this bill, Senator John McCain. John McCain is not known for putting things in managers' amendments that shouldn't be in managers' amendments. If there ever was a guardian of something in a managers' amendment, it is the senior Senator from Arizona. But in spite of that, in spite of his reputation, the reality is that no one puts anything in a managers' amendment unless this man looks it over--and he is a comanager of this bill--and we still haven't been able to clear these managers' amendments.

For these and other reasons, I temporarily laid aside the Defense authorization bill and entered a motion to reconsider. But let me be clear to all my colleagues, and especially my Republican colleagues, I emphasize the word ``temporarily.'' We will do everything in our power to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to complete consideration of the Defense authorization bill. Why? Because we must do both.

I remind my Republican colleagues, even if this bill had passed yesterday, even if this bill passed today, its provisions would not take effect until next October.

So we will come back to this bill as soon as it is clear that we can make real progress. I have spoken with Senator Levin, the manager on this side. I have spoken with the assistant leader, the whip, Senator Durbin. I have asked them to sit down with their counterparts, Senator McCain and Senator Lott, to work on a process to address these outstanding issues, especially the managers' amendment, so that the Senate can return to it as soon as possible.

In the meantime, we will continue to work with our Republican colleagues who are saying the right things--a number of them, a significant number of them--on Iraq but aren't yet committed to voting in the right way. But we will get there. As Gladstone once said:

You cannot fight against the future. You cannot fight

against the future. Time is on our side.

In this case, time and the American people are also on our side. The Levin-Reed amendment would allow us to rebuild our badly overburdened military and return our focus to the real security threats posed by al- Qaida and other terrorist organizations.

I think it is important, Mr. President, that I mention the other procedural roadblock that was thrown up trying to do this bill: the Webb amendment. What did the Webb amendment do? If you are in country 15 months, serving in the military, you should be able to stay home for 15 months. There was a procedural block.

The Levin-Reed amendment would allow us, as I have indicated, to take a look at our overburdened military and do something about it and return our focus to the real security threats posed by al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. As the new National Intelligence Estimate makes very clear, these growing threats demand our attention.

In today's newspaper, and there are other places, but here is only one headline: ``Problems Spur Efforts in Protection of Federal Buildings.'' The Homeland Security Agency needs more help, is what this news story is all about.

President Bush likes to say we must fight the terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to fight them at home, but we all know there were no al- Qaida forces in Iraq prior to the war. And as the President's own intelligence experts admit, the war has only stoked the flames of terrorists and made us more vulnerable to attack.

These experts concluded in the National Intelligence Estimate that the threat to our homeland is growing as al-Qaida has regenerated its capacity to launch attacks. While the Bush administration's preoccupation with Iraq has prevented us from addressing that threat, there is important action the Senate can take and should take.

Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent to move to consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, chaired by two of our most senior Members, Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Thad Cochran. This critically important legislation provides $37.6 billion for Homeland Security activities. It is more than the President asked, $2.3 billion. This bill was reported unanimously by the Senate Appropriations Committee--unanimously--and it will give the Senate an opportunity to show who is serious about protecting America from terrorist attacks.

I would hope that given the urgency of the national security issue, as highlighted by the National Intelligence Estimate and the need to make progress on appropriations bills, we can move to consideration of this most important bill.

The President, in his Saturday address 2 weeks ago this coming Saturday, said: Why aren't we doing appropriations bills? Well, we have an opportunity to do a very important appropriations bill dealing with homeland security. Our security--not dealing with Iraq, not dealing with Afghanistan--dealing with our security.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, H.R. 2638.

I would really like to take it up now. That is why I asked this consent. I am sorry if there was some confusion in that regard.

The only reason I was doing that, of course, is that there was an inkling from your floor staff you would object to us going to this immediately.

Mr. President, I am hopeful and confident we can work something out in this regard.

In order to protect our country, and all of us, I move to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2638 and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I would also say, and hopefully we won't have to do this, I am cautiously optimistic we can avoid this, but I will ask unanimous consent that in case we can't, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion.

Mr. President, let me just say a few more words. We have been prevented from acting on the 9/11 recommendations. I should say that now we are in conference, and I am so appreciative of that. I understand Chairman Lieberman is going to hold his first meeting tomorrow. It took a while

to get there, but that is important. But we also need to change the course in Iraq, and that didn't happen, and so now we have this.

We have all seen and heard reports that our intelligence community has concluded that al-Qaida's strength has grown to its 9/11 levels, and the statement of the Secretary of Homeland Security that he has a gut feeling we are at greater risk of being attacked this summer by terrorists. In spite of all this, we have just seen an example of obstructionism that has slowed down and prevented the Senate from consideration of this bill today.

The latest obstruction would delay important investments. This Homeland Security bill does lots of things. We just finished the immigration debate. This is not as good for border security as the immigration bill would have been--I don't expect we will do that debate today--but it does do some good things. This bill hires 3,000 more Border Patrol agents and provides 4,000 more detention beds. When someone is picked up, they will have a place to put them. This provides $400 million for port security grants. This bill provides $1.83 billion for State and local first responders. And one other example is that this bill provides monies for the purchase and installation of explosive detection equipment at airports.

Mr. President, in an effort to use our time effectively, while the cloture motion on Homeland Security ripens, I am asking now unanimous consent to proceed to the education reconciliation bill, a bipartisan bill that will make college education more affordable for hundreds of thousands of students.

Mr. President, I ask for regular order.

Mr. President, he is going to have all day to talk. He has the right to object, and he did that. We listened to his statement.

We believe the American people were entitled to have 2 days, at least 2 days of debate on the Levin-Reed amendment to change the course in Iraq. He may disagree. I would bet, with all due respect to my friend, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, that the people of Pennsylvania want a change of course in the intractable war in which we find ourselves in Iraq.

So the Senator can talk about a waste of time. But I move to proceed to H.R. 2669, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.