Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007, which will provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, teaching our young people about their natural world should be a priority, and this legislation is an important first step.

For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education. Mr. President, 30 million students and 1.2 million teachers annually are involved in these programs.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and a lack of funding for these critical programs.

The legislation that I am introducing today would address these two causes. It would provide funding to States to train their teachers in the field of environmental education, and it would provide support for outdoor environmental education programs for children and a model environmental education curriculum. The bill would also create incentives, through new funding, for states to develop environmental literacy plans to make sure students have a solid understanding of our planet and its precious natural resources. Finally, the legislation would reestablish the Office of Environmental Education within the U.S. Department of Education to oversee critical environmental education activities. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups.

The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education ...'' In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future.

Climate change, conservation of precious natural resources, maintaining clean air and water, and other environmental challenges are pressing and complex issues that influence human health, economic development and national security. Finding widespread agreement about the specific steps we need to take to solve these problems is difficult. Environmental education will help ensure that our Nation's children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these critical issues. In short, the environment should be an important part of the curriculum in our schools.

I know my constituents in Rhode Island, as well as the residents of other States, want their children to be environmentally literate and have a connection with the natural world. I am proud to sponsor this important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I request time from the Democratic side.

Mr. President, first let me begin by commending Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and their colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Rockefeller, for extraordinary work. This effort represents great legislating based upon principled compromise to achieve a noble objective, which is to provide health coverage to the children of America. I can't think of a more laudable effort than that which has been led and spearheaded by both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. They deserve our praise and our support.

I am here today to lend my support to the expansion of the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, to support this endeavor which is so critical to the health of the country, literally and figuratively. It is not only a sensible policy in terms of investing in children, it is also morally compelling.

What more lofty objective can we have than to give children access to health care, to be able to grow up in this country knowing they can receive medical attention when they need it?

We are in a situation now where, remarkably, the Nation's level of poverty is growing. It is higher now than it was in 1970. We have not had a President since Lyndon Johnson try to tackle this issue head on. This bill recognizes that there are families who don't have the resources to buy health insurance, but they have a claim as Americans and as citizens to at least have their children covered. I hope we can do that by passing this legislation.

It is estimated there are 37 million Americans in poverty, 13 million of whom are children. These are not merely statistics; they are our neighbors in every State in the Union. They are youngsters who we hope one day will grow up healthy and strong to participate not just as workers in this economy but as productive citizens of this great land. To do that they need access to health care.

We also know that children without access to health care fare very poorly in school and have difficulties. These difficulties become more and more complex, and they compound over the years. In fact, one of the strongest arguments for this legislation is that it makes sense as an investment. It is better to pay now rather than later, in terms of social disruption and serious health problems. That is something I hope even the most hard-nosed colleague in the Senate will appreciate.

One of the consequences of this issue of growing poverty and the bifurcation of income between the rich and the rest of us in what we all consider to be the ``land of opportunity,'' sadly, is that opportunity is not as evident or as palpable as it was in the past. One of the great engines of opportunity for any individual, in addition to education, is health and the ability to seize these opportunities-- work, education, and service to others.

Again, I think this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. We have to do more. We have to recognize there are families who are working two jobs--mothers and fathers working 50, 60, 70 hours a week-- and still they don't have the resources necessary to pay for the increasing cost of health care for their children or themselves. They are squeezed between paying the rent, providing food for the family, and

are looking, many times, for ways to cover the cost of health care for their children.

I am very proud to have been one of the original cosponsors of CHIP in 1997. We were fortunate in Rhode Island to have on the Finance Committee Senator John Chafee, who was one of the leading advocates of the program. As Senator Grassley suggested, this program was crafted with a bipartisan effort in 1997, and one of the great leaders in that was John Chafee. In many respects, we are here today--both of us--to renew his commitment to the children of America.

Over the past decade, this program has been an unequivocal success. It has reduced the number of low-income uninsured children in this country. It has done what it said it would do, and it has done it well. In Rhode Island, we have a combined Medicaid/CHIP program called RIteCare. Our program has been instrumental in reducing uninsured children, and it made a difference for hard-working families in my State. While this program made great strides, there is still much more work to be done.

I want to take a few moments to address some of the issues raised about the Senate Finance Committee agreement and talk to some of the points raised in this Chamber criticizing that agreement. I believe this agreement is not only sound policy, but it addresses a major concern in the country. The proposal before us would achieve several key objectives supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

First, it preserves coverage for all 6.6 million children presently covered under the CHIP program. Second, it renews the original intent of the program by making a real commitment to cover an additional 3.2 million children who are eligible for coverage but not enrolled. These two important goals are achieved by allocating $35 billion over 5 years. The original program was financed through the Federal cigarette excise tax, and the proposal before us continues to use this mechanism.

The bill also addresses a problem with the formula that was beginning to plague a growing number of States, including my State of Rhode Island. Last December, I joined a number of my colleagues in crafting an agreement to redistribute unexpended funds from some States and redirect them to States, such as Rhode Island and Georgia and New Jersey, that were rapidly approaching budget shortfalls because they exceeded their CHIP allotment.

The Finance Committee, recognizing this issue, has made a proposal that institutes needed changes in the formula used to calculate State CHIP allotments so Congress is not required to resort to eleventh hour deals to shift money from one State that hasn't used it to other States. That is an important change to the legislation. The bill sets aside a portion of funds in case of contingencies, such as what was experienced during Hurricane Katrina.

Lastly, the bill tackles a challenge that States have been struggling with since the CHIP program began 10 years ago; that is, reaching children who are uninsured and eligible for coverage but are not enrolled. The bill provides incentive funds and flexibility for States to overcome the many economic, social, and geographic barriers that hinder millions of uninsured children who deserve health insurance coverage.

My home State of Rhode Island is a perfect case in point. While Rhode Island ranks 10th nationally in the lowest number of uninsured children--we are very proud of that; in fact, we would like to move up in the ranking from 10 to 1--a recent report by Rhode Island Kids Count indicates that of the estimated 18,680 uninsured children in the State, 11,275 of them were eligible for children's health insurance coverage but were not enrolled. We should enroll all eligible children; that should be our goal. We have to reach these children and, frankly, this legislation will help States become more proactive and successful in enrolling children.

There has been criticism directed at the bill. Let me take a moment to respond to some of the criticism. There has been concern about the cost of the package. I understand that alternative versions of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization will be offered by others in the Chamber during this debate. Some of these bills will have very enticing names, like Kids First, but we should not be fooled by it. The substance of these amendments does everything but put kids first. It won't even maintain the minimum coverage that we have today. Some of the 6.6 million children who are enrolled today will lose out in these alternatives. Rather than expanding coverage, it will contract coverage. We don't want to head in the other direction; we want to move forward.

Similarly, others have balked about the $35 billion price tag. I remind my colleagues that our Senate budget resolution allocated $50 million for children's health insurance coverage. The Senate Finance Committee, the chairman and ranking member, labored mightily and came up with the best possible proposal they could get through the committee, and it is a principled proposal. I salute it. But I was disappointed that the committee left on the table $15 billion that could have been used to insure more children. I have joined Senator Kerry in his amendment to restore it. Again, in terms of our budget priorities, the proposal before us today is even less than what was supported in the budget resolution. For those who say it is too expensive, that suggests this hasn't been very carefully considered and indeed it was, unfortunately, somewhat winnowed down.

Perhaps the most poignant reference is that, while we were talking about $35 billion over 5 years for children's health, we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. That says a lot about how we have to begin to reshape our priorities. I don't believe we are spending too much on children when it comes to this particular legislation.

Some have expressed displeasure over using the Federal cigarette excise tax to finance the package. The bill would gradually raise the tax 61 cents, up to $1, over a 5-year period. This is consistent with the original financing mechanism for the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. But there is something else interesting here. Cigarette smoking has been identified for decades as one of the chief public health problems in this country, particularly when children start doing it. It is a threat to the health of the Nation, and I doubt if there is anyone in this Chamber who has not had at least one family member's health affected adversely by smoking. I listened to Senator Enzi speak passionately in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week about his father's smoking, which led to his demise, and it also affected his mother.

When you raise the price of a product, you curtail the amount of it that is purchased. We are using market forces to help us do something that we should do: reduce the rate of cigarette smoking. Using market mechanisms in this way, not only to raise resources for health insurance for children, but to lower the number of people who engage in smoking will save public health dollars that are being spent to care for people who have lung cancer, emphysema, and other respiratory diseases caused by smoking.

There is another concern that has been raised, which is that the agreement grossly expands the CHIP program to parents and childless adults, when in fact the bill does quite the opposite. The bipartisan agreement actually ends the administration's practice of providing States waivers to cover parents and childless adults. To date, 14 States have received waivers to cover parents and childless adults, including my State of Rhode Island. In fact, Secretary Leavitt just approved a 3-year extension of Wisconsin's waiver allowing adult coverage. Frankly, I believe that States deserve the ability to take these steps. I am disappointed that more States won't be able to do it. This bill acts as a check on that administrative authority. It deliberately, at this time, restricts the number of parents and childless adults who can join this coverage.

As my colleague, Senator Menendez, mentioned earlier, research shows a strong correlation between parental coverage and the enrollment of eligible children. Once again, the policy behind enrolling parents is sound. But this bill, rather than grossly expanding parental coverage, begins to restrict that coverage. Under the agreement, States with existing coverage expansion waivers will be given a period of transition, and no new States will be granted the opportunity to extend coverage under CHIP. This seems like a reasonable response to these concerns, but I hope as

we go forward we might be able to look at the logic behind parental coverage policies as a way to ensure that the whole family-- particularly children--are covered.

The proposal also rightly grants States the option to cover pregnant women. Good prenatal care is essential to overall child health and well-being, as well as reducing the number of low birth weight and premature babies. Given the fact that the United States is actually behind most developed countries, and even some developing countries, in terms of these indicators, this step is certainly warranted and overdue.

Finally, Members seem to have great consternation over the fact that children's health coverage produces some level of crowding out of private insurance coverage, and the bill is a giant step toward Government-run health care. Again, the rhetoric seems to be at odds with the reality of what is in this bill. I note that most enrollees in public insurance are actually covered through private plans, where States take the money and reimburse the private insurer. The Finance Committee proposal takes the additional step of including something called premium support. It essentially gives States the ability to offer subsidies for children who are eligible for CHIP coverage but have access to employer-sponsored coverage.

In my State, we have had this experience. We have a program called RIteShare. The program has enabled thousands of Rhode Island families who otherwise could not afford to remain in private insurance coverage to do so with a little help from the State. It is a marginal contribution to their private health insurance, which allows them to stay in the private market. This proposal, again, goes a long way toward addressing the issue of potential crowding out.

I believe this bipartisan agreement represents a very strong step forward to facilitate outreach and enrollment of low-income children. It is not a perfect legislative proposal, but it is an important one based on principled compromise. It reinforces our commitment to children's health. I am amazed the President is already suggesting he might veto it, despite overwhelming public support, and despite the compelling economics that are behind investing in children's health.

I hope that we will by our votes demonstrate that this is a bill which should not be vetoed but should be passed quickly so children can continue to enjoy access to health care in our country.

We all understand that our future is really about our children. They will be the leaders years from now, and we all hope and wish that they will grow up strong, able to seize the opportunities of this Nation. Beyond hoping and wishing today, we can help make that a reality by voting for this important legislation. I urge all my colleagues to join me in doing so.

Finally, I would like to take another moment. As colleagues, we come to the floor, we debate issues and legislation we have sponsored, but the details are worked out by staff members long into the wee hours of the morning. We read speeches prepared by very dedicated staff members.

I have the rare privilege of saluting someone who has worked with me for so many years. Lisa German Foster has been with me since January 1996 when I joined the Senate. She is leaving to pursue other endeavors.

She started in my office as an unpaid intern and has become recognized here as one of the preeminent staffers with respect to health care issues and one of the most decent and humane individuals one will ever meet. I salute her for her work on this bill, on child health and immunization, on the bone marrow registry, on tobacco legislation.

She is a native of my home State of Rhode Island, in Narragansett, but I think she is firmly ensconced in Washington, DC, with her husband Bill and children Aidan and Brady.

Lisa, on behalf of all of us here, thank you for your good work.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jessica Gerrity, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate consideration of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007.

Mr. President, today, on behalf of the Greek Cypriot population of Rhode Island and Greek Cypriots around the world, I recognize the 33rd anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

At 5:30 a.m. 33 years ago today, heavily armed Turkish troops landed on a narrow northern beachhead in Cyprus 5 days after Greek Cypriot nationalists ousted then-President Archbishop Makarios. The invasion and subsequent occupation was described by Turkey as a ``peace operation'' to protect the minority Turkish population living in Cyprus from being victimized in the aftermath of the coup.

However, during the next 2 months, over 200,000 Greek Cypriots fled south or were expelled by Turkish forces. The Turkish Cypriots took over 37 percent of the island and then called a ceasefire, leaving the Greek Cypriots, 82 percent of the population, with under two-thirds of Cyprus. In 1983, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus declared itself a country. Currently, Turkey is the only nation that recognizes this self-declaration of statehood.

Despite international efforts over the last 30 years to reunify the island, Cyprus has remained divided with more than 40,000 Turkish troops occupying its northern third. The United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have worked to determine an equally agreeable solution, but talks between the Greek Cypriot south and the Turkish Cypriot north consistently end in a stalemate.

A survey completed in February 2007 by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus found that a majority of both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities view the United Nations' presence on the island as a positive. Both see any withdrawal scenario involving the U.N. departing before restoration of normal conditions and a settlement being reached as a negative. We must applaud the continued efforts of the United Nations and the focus of Cypriot leaders to reunite a divided Cyprus and remain, ourselves, committed to ushering the settlement process forward. Cypriot, Mediterranean, and United States interests will benefit from a settlement that addresses all legitimate concerns of both sides and promotes the stability of a hostile region.

Sirens wailed across the southern half of Cyprus today, in memory of the day known as ``black anniversary'' among the Greek Cypriots. Cypriot leaders, on both sides of the divide, must take forward steps to wash away the darkness of this day and replace it with peace and tolerance.

Mr. President, today, with a heavy heart, I recognize an American patriot and public servant who passed away on July 17, 2007: GEN Wayne A. Downing, U.S. Army, Retired.

Born on May 10, 1940, in Peoria, IL, General Downing graduated from the Spalding Institute in 1958 and was then appointed to the U.S. Military Academy. Following his graduation from West Point in 1962, General Downing served two combat tours in Vietnam as a junior infantry officer.

General Downing served his country for 34 years in a variety of command assignments in infantry, armored, special operations, and joint units, culminating in his appointment as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. As a general officer, he commanded the special operations of all services during the 1989 invasion of Panama and commanded a joint special operations task force operating deep behind the Iraqi lines during Operation Desert Storm.

General Downing's reputation was that of a smart, decisive, forceful, and caring leader, known in particular for his unwavering determination to accomplish any mission assigned and provide his soldiers the best possible support. His personal courage and leadership by example inspired fierce loyalty from all the soldiers who worked for him.

Following his retirement from the U.S. Army in 1996, General Downing had repeatedly answered the call of public service. After the terrorist attack on the U.S. base at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, he was appointed by President Clinton to assess the attack and to make recommendations on how to protect Americans and U.S. facilities worldwide from future attacks.

From 1999-2000, General Downing was a member of the congressionally mandated National Commission on Terrorism charged with examining the terrorist threat to the U.S., evaluating America's laws, policies, and practices for preventing and punishing terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, and recommending corrective actions.

In the wake of 9/11, General Downing served for almost a year in the White House as national director and deputy national security advisor for combating terrorism. As the President's principal adviser on matters related to combating terrorism, he was responsible for coordinating the military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, information, and financial operations of our war on terror, and for developing and executing a strategy that integrated all elements of national power.

Following his assignment at the White House, General Downing returned to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point when he assumed the position of ``Distinguished Chair'' of the Combating Terrorism Center, CTC. Under his leadership, the center sought to better understand foreign and domestic terrorism threats, to educate future leaders, and to provide political analysis and advice to counter future terrorist activities.

In addition to his duties at the CTC, General Downing was a visiting faculty member at the University of Michigan Business School conducting seminars on leadership and transformation management and was military and terrorism analyst for NBC News.

General Downing's career has epitomized the phrase ``lifetime of service to the Nation'' and exemplified ideals inherent in duty, honor, and country. He was a true warrior who always spoke the truth, insisted on complete honesty from all he worked with, and was the epitome of honorable behavior. As a combat leader, educator, global strategist, and national security expert, General Downing's contributions to our national defense and security are immeasurable.

Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Kathryn, his daughters Laura and Elizabeth, and the entire Downing family in this time of sorrow. He will be missed dearly by his many friends, colleagues, and an extremely grateful Nation.

Madam President, due to the delay of my flight, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 285, the vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 976.

Had I been present, I would have voted yes on the motion to proceed. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Senate will consider this year. It is the first reauthorization of the highly successful Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. I am proud to have been a part of the original bipartisan effort to create this initiative back in 1997. While some on the other side of the aisle will criticize the Finance Committee agreement pending before this Chamber, no one can deny CHIP has played a crucial role in helping to reduce the rate of uninsured low-income children over the past 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of uninsured children fell from 22.5 percent in 1996 to 16.9 percent in 2005 due in large part to CHIP.

I look forward to a vigorous and spirited debate on this bill, and I am dedicated to working very closely with my colleagues to ensure the Senate will advance a reauthorization bill that reaffirms our commitment to health insurance coverage for children in Rhode Island and around the country.

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe A Book Act.

Our legislation amends the No Child Left Behind Act to create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long- standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants to highly qualified nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to five years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.

The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of the 40 Rhode Island Reach Out and Read sites.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Prescribe A Book Act and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce with my colleague, Senator Grassley, the Prescribe A Book Act.

Our legislation amends the No Child Left Behind Act to create a federal pediatric early literacy grant initiative based on the long- standing, successful Reach Out and Read program. The program would award grants to highly qualified nonprofit entities to train doctors and nurses in advising parents about the importance of reading aloud and to give books to children at pediatric check-ups from 6 months to five years of age, with a priority for children from low-income families. It builds on the relationship between parents and medical providers and helps families and communities encourage early literacy skills so children enter school prepared for success in reading.

The Reach Out and Read model has consistently demonstrated effectiveness in increasing parent involvement and boosting children's reading proficiency. Research published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals has found that parents who have participated in the program are significantly more likely to read to their children and include more children's books in their home, and that children served by the program show an increase of 4-8 points on vocabulary tests. I have seen up-close the positive impact of this program on children and their families when visiting a number of the 40 Rhode Island Reach Out and Read sites.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Prescribe A Book Act and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.

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

Mr. President, I believe that securing our Nation's public transportation systems is one of the most pressing homeland security issues facing our Nation. Over 180 public transportation systems throughout the world have been primary targets of terrorist attacks. In 2001, as chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development, I held the first hearing on transit security in the wake of September 11. The hearing took place early in the 107th Congress so I am saddened that it has taken us this long to enact legislation to protect our transit systems. I am pleased, however, that tonight we are prepared to pass the conference report to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, including the transit security measures that I authored.

While our Nation acted quickly after 9/11 to secure airports and airplanes against terrorists, major vulnerabilities remain in surface transportation. Transit agencies around the country have identified in excess of $6 billion in transit security needs.

Transit is vital to providing mobility for millions of Americans and offers tremendous economic benefits to our Nation. In the United States, people use public transportation over 33 million times each week day compared to 2 million passengers who fly daily. Paradoxically, it is the very openness of the system that makes it vulnerable to terrorism. When one considers this and the fact that roughly $7 per passenger is invested in aviation security, but less than 1 cent is invested in the security of each transit passenger, the need for an authorized transit security program is clear. We need to be more vigilant to protect public transit from terrorists.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I was proud to author with Senators Dodd and Shelby comprehensive legislation to protect our public transportation systems and the Americans that they serve. Title XIV of The Improving America's Security Act of 2007 authorizes $3.5 billion in grants to transit agencies for capital and operational costs. It also establishes an essential security training program for public transportation employees who are at the front lines of preventing terrorist acts. The act allows the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland Security to determine which federal Department will distribute the grant funding. I urge the Secretaries and the administration to place responsibility for the grant program with the Department of Transportation and make this decision promptly. It is my opinion that this will result in the effective and efficient administration of the program for local transit agencies.

Taking action to protect our public transportation systems is long overdue. I am pleased to support the Improving America's Security Act.

Mr. President, I strongly support passage of S. 1642, the Higher Education Amendments of 2007.

This important bipartisan legislation, which I helped craft as a Member of the Senate Education Committee, would reauthorize the Higher Education Act for the first time since 1998, expand college access and affordability for students and their families, and ensure that teachers have the necessary skills and supports to effectively raise student achievement in the classroom.

This bill builds on our passage last week of the Higher Education Access Act, which makes a nearly $14 billion investment in additional need-based grant assistance for low-income students. That bill also helps middle-class students and families pay down and manage their loan debt by capping monthly loan payments at 15 percent of their discretionary income. And it sends a signal about the need for more talented young people to become nurses, teachers, and librarians by offering them loan forgiveness if they continue in public-service professions for 10 years.

Earlier this year, I introduced a bill aimed at making it easier for families to fill out the financial aid form that all students have to fill out to see if they can get tuition assistance. I called the bill the FAFSA Act, Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act. It is based on the recommendations of experts and should help make a sometimes difficult process less time consuming and frustrating. First, it would phase out the complex, one-size-fits-all long form at 7 pages and over 90 questions, using the savings to employ ``smart'' technology to create a tailored online application form to ensure that students answer only the minimum number of questions necessary. Second, the bill would establish a short paper EZ-FAFSA application form, similar to the IRS's 1040-EZ, for the lowest-income students. Third, this legislation allows students to apply for financial aid earlier, and it creates a pilot program to test an early application system under which students apply for aid and receive an aid estimate or determination in their junior year of high school. I am pleased that these provisions are included in the bill the Senate is passing today.

The Higher Education Amendments of 2007 also include provisions from another bill that I introduced earlier this year, the ACCESS Act. Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships Act--S. 938, modeled on successful programs like Indiana's 21st Century Scholars Program. Indeed, students in the Indiana initiative were nearly five times more likely than nonparticipants to enroll in college. The ACCESS Act creates a new incentive under the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program to spur states to form partnerships with colleges, businesses, and philanthropies to increase the amount of need-based grants. This new initiative would also make sure that students are aware of this opportunity for more aid in the 7th grade and provide early intervention, mentoring, and outreach services so they can stay on track for college. Again, research has shown that successful college access programs offer these components, and I am glad the bill before us includes them.

Furthermore, the Higher Education Amendments include several provisions from my PRREP--Preparing, Recruiting, and Retaining Education Professionals--Act, S. 1231, to strengthen the existing Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program and improve college teacher preparation programs. These provisions ensure that prospective and beginning teachers, including for the first time, early childhood educators, have effective teaching skills, intensive, year-long pre- service clinical experiences, and high-quality, sustained multiyear mentoring and support in their first years of teaching. Too often, new teachers lack this kind of training and leave the profession. This bill aims to change that.

This legislation also includes my LIBRARIAN--Librarian Incentive to Boost Recruitment and Retention in Areas of Need--Act, S. 1121, to provide Perkins student loan forgiveness for full-time librarians with a master's degree in library science. Librarians working full-time in low-income areas would qualify for up to 100 percent Perkins student loan forgiveness depending on their number of years of experience. Indeed, a love of reading and books is essential to an educated workforce, but too often schools go without a trained librarian.

We hear often that serving in the military permits our military personnel to gain help with the costs of college when they leave the service, but all too often it is not enough. That is why I included language in this bill to increase Perkins loan forgiveness for members of the Armed Forces from 50 to 100 percent. The legislation also includes provisions I authored to create a career pathway for students with disabilities by providing training and support to middle school, high school, and university staff to encourage interest and understanding of educational and work-based opportunities for students, including those with disabilities, in disability-related fields.

I am also pleased this reauthorization bill includes provisions responding to recently uncovered conflicts of interests between lenders and college financial aid offices. This legislation provides students and families with increased disclosure about special arrangements between lenders and colleges and the terms and conditions of a school's ``preferred lender list''; prohibits payments, gifts, and other inducements from lenders to colleges and financial aid administrators; and requires colleges to establish and follow a student loan code of conduct.

The bill we are passing today is significant legislation that addresses one of the top concerns of American families. It tackles the twin goals of increased college access and affordability for students and their families as was intended when the Higher Education Act was created in 1965. It represents an important step in ensuring that every student with the drive and talent to go to college has the opportunity to do so. I thank Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Enzi, and their staffs, particularly Carmel Martin, J.D. LaRock, Missy Rohrbach, Erin Renner, and Emma Vadehra for their excellent work on this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this important bill becomes law, so that we continue our commitment to creating and expanding educational opportunities for all students.

Mr. President, due to the delay of my flight from Rhode Island, I was unavoidably absent for vote No. 273, the Brown amendment to create a new Federal Supplemental Loan program.

Had I been present, I would have supported the Brown amendment No. 2376. We know that more and more students are taking out private loans with high interest rates. Senator Brown's amendment seeks to provide an alternative for those students who have exhausted their grant and Stafford loan aid and continue to need assistance in meeting their college cost of attendance. I have heard concern that such a program could provide a disincentive to States to provide additional grant aid, but I believe we must address the fact that too many moderate- and low- income students take out high interest private loans, which creates an unmanageable loan burden for these students and their families. The Brown amendment is an attempt to rectify this situation and although not perfect, it is worthy of inclusion in the committee's deliberation.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words. And one of my first reactions was a bit of confusion. He referenced General Lamb, the British officer in Baghdad, expressing chagrin at the proposals to reduce the troop strength of the American forces. He must have been beside himself last February when Prime Minister Blair announced the reduction of British forces. In fact, Prime Minister Blair stated at that time that 7,100 troops would be drawn down to approximately 5,500. That is down from a level of 40,000.

So at the time that the British are withdrawing troops, we are trying to surge troops. I think the general's peak or discomfort is somewhat misplaced with the United States. I think it should more properly be directed to Prime Minister Blair.

But let me get on with issues that I want to address, and that is to try to clarify from my perspective some of the concepts and terms that have been talked about. One is a repeated reference to General Petraeus's plan. The President makes it, and my colleagues make it. This is the President's plan. General Petraeus was asked specifically in his confirmation hearing what role he played, and here was his answer.

I met with the Secretary of Defense a couple days after he

took office and before he left for his first trip to Iraq,

and we discussed the situation there during that meeting. We

subsequently talked after his trip. I also talked to the

chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff several times in this

period, noting that a population and security emphasis in

Baghdad in particular was necessary to help the Iraqis gain

the time and space for tough decisions.

As the strategy was refined, I talked on several occasions

to General Odierno. I relayed my support for those levels

that General Odierno recommended to the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs. I also supported the additional emphasis in the

advisory effort.

This is not a precise quote, but paraphrases his remarks. General Petraeus is not the author of this plan. He, like many officers, participated, was asked questions; he had great experience. He was the head and led the 101st Air Mobile Division in Iraq and was head of our training effort. But this is not his plan.

Now, he has accepted this plan. He did that publicly. But this is the President's plan. And at the heart of the President's plan is the statement he made on January 10 when he announced it.

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other

leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the

Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it

will lose the support of the American people and lose the

support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The

prime minister understands this.

Well, apparently, the prime minister did not understand, because in the intervening months, exactly what the President feared has happened. There has been no adequate political progress in Iraq. That is key rationale for the increased forces in Iraq. And without this political decisiveness on the part of the Iraqis, our military efforts will not be decisive. And what has happened because of this failure to act is precisely as the President suggested? The American people have increasingly become critical of the policy in Iraq. Their support is eroding, and similarly the Iraqi people.

So you have a situation now where the logic and the premise for the surge, for the troop levels we are maintaining in Iraq, was the fact there would be political progress. Since January, to date there has not been political progress. I daresay there is very few, if any, of my colleagues that will argue that between now and September 15 we will see remarkable progress by the Iraqi Government. Indeed, it is suspected, confirmed practically, that the Iraqi Assembly will adjourn in August for the month. So the reality is that on these critical issues of political will and decisiveness and political progress, we will know nothing in September that we do not know now.

Given the incredibly complicated political system, the incredibly complicated institutional challenges facing the Iraqi Government, the notion that we will know more even at the end of this year or the beginning of next year is doubtful. Without this political progress, all our military efforts will not produce success. That is one reason I think we have to begin to change course. We have to begin to adjust our effort to protect our self-interests and our interests in the region, but no longer be the broker, if you will, for political progress in Iraq that does not materialize.

My colleagues have been on the Senate floor and said time and time again that there have been deadlines imposed, in many cases by the Iraqis themselves, that have not been met. The latest report, just a few days ago, suggested these political benchmarks have not been issued. Without that, our efforts and the brave sacrifice of our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors, and every man and woman who is out there, are not producing the results we want and need. So we have to look again at this strategy.

But there is another factor, too, that I think is important to note. I was just in Iraq--as so many of my colleagues have traveled there, I have also--and I spoke with General Petraeus directly. He gave me every indication that he was not waiting for September; that he had been able to make an assessment over the several months he has been in command, and he is prepared to make a recommendation--unless I misunderstood him--before the end of August.

Now, he might be overruled by the White House in Washington, but he has a pretty good sense of what is happening on the ground, and we should have that same sense in the Congress.

The other factor that seems so critical when it is put next to the issue of no apparent progress by Iraqi political leaders is the fact that by April of next year, April 2008, our military forces will not be able to generate 160,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The surge will come to an end regardless of what happens on the ground. Unless, of course, the President is prepared to

make Draconian personnel changes, extend deployments to 18 months or even longer, calling up Reserve and National Guard units that are not scheduled to be called up, continuing to rely upon the stop-loss practice, where individuals who are eligible to leave the service after honorable service are denied the opportunity to leave and in many cases are forced to deploy; picking reservists and people who are in the individual Ready Reserve, those are individuals who served their full active commitment, they have left, many of them have gone on with their lives and suddenly they are called up and told get back in uniform, you are going overseas.

Without such draconian decisions, then by next April we will not be able to field 160,000 troops in Iraq as we are doing today. So the reality is this policy will change. The question is, will it change now or then and will it change in a way that strengthens the national security of the United States? Also, will it change in a way it will gain the support of the American people?

One of the factors in a counterinsurgency is the fact that you need popular support. That is not something that is a special thing to have or a nice thing to have, it is essential to the strategy. We are losing--the President is losing--popular support with respect to these operations. Without that support, we will not be able to maintain our presence in Iraq.

We are seeing already Americans across the political divide, across the geographical divide, demanding that this Congress act. They have, frankly, little confidence in the President's ability, after all these years, to get it right. That is one of the major reasons we are here today debating, and we will be tonight debating, because the American people are looking for a new direction in Iraq.

The other factor that I think should be mentioned is that, while we have pursued a strategy of increasing our forces, our adversaries--and they are multiple in a complicated theater of operations--have reacted. First of all, they have taken the battle, if you will, the battle we tried to orchestrate in Baghdad, and they have spread it around the country. They have moved where there are fewer troops. This has caused us to spread our operations around. The surge, if you will, the additional approximately 30,000 troops, were initially intended to go into Baghdad.

If you, as I did, listened closely to General Petraeus at his confirmation hearing, if you listened to the President in his January 10 speech, the concept was Baghdad was going to be locked down. It was going to be saturated with American and Iraqi forces. That has not happened because our tactical leaders have determined they must get out of Baghdad, they must go ahead and pursue some of these elements outside of Baghdad, and our adversaries have decided they would rather move on than take us in a head-to-head fight.

Time, regretfully, is always on the side of the insurgent. If they can survive a day, then that is a day that is in their favor. As a result, even with these additional 30,000 troops, there is a question of whether they are an adequate number to take over this population protection mission the President has announced. The population of Iraq is significant. That is another factor I think we have to consider when we look at the adequacy of even the President's proposal today.

The Levin-Reed proposal talks about doing what is not only necessary but frankly inevitable. We have to begin to redeploy our forces. We have to begin to reduce our forces. We cannot sustain this effort because of the structure of our military forces.

The President had an opportunity several years ago, in the wake of our success in Afghanistan and in the wake of the operations in Iraq, to dramatically increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. Senator Hagel and I came to the floor and we proposed an amendment, in 2003, to do that. This was opposed by the administration because, if you recall, back then this Iraq operation was basically all but over and they were getting out.

Now it is very difficult to increase the size of the military forces. The Army has missed, for the last 2 months, its recruiting objectives. But even if we stayed on track recruiting, we are still in a situation where we cannot grow the Army fast enough, the Marine Corps fast enough, to maintain indefinitely these forces in Iraq. So the strategy must change. If the strategy is not only not supported by our end strength, it certainly must change in the light of the American people.

I think the President made a significant mistake last January. After an election that sent a very strong signal all across this country that the American people wanted change, after the report of the Iraq Study Group, wise men and women on both sides of the aisle, with no particular special interest they were trying to protect or advance-- they were true patriots coming forward to give their best advice-- suggested that our strategy should be remarkably similar to what we are talking about today: the redeployment of the American forces; switching missions to training, force protection, counterterrorism; engaging in robust diplomatic activity in the region.

Those recommendations were cast aside by the President. At that point, if not earlier, the American public began to seriously question the direction of his policy in Iraq. Without public support, you cannot conduct military operations effectively or for any length of time.

So we face two realities in the United States. Ultimately, the inability to generate this force structure indefinitely and the fact that the American people are growing increasingly intolerant of our operations in Iraq--not our forces there, not those magnificent men and women who are fighting and sadly dying each day but our presence there and the lack each day, in their minds, of any real progress and the documented lack of political progress. It was documented a few days ago on the part of the Iraqi Government.

So we have to change. The question then is what is the best way to do it? We can debate about this. But certainly this amendment, offered by myself and Senator Levin, represents a change. Not a hortatory request for further assessment, not a discussion of possibilities or reference to another study group but a plan of change.

It begins by initiating a reduction of our forces 120 days after passage. That probably will be sometime toward the end of this year, given the nature of the legislative process. It doesn't specify any specific level of reductions. That is the President as Commander's prerogative. It doesn't specify a particular timetable when they can leave, who should go first. Again, that is his prerogative. But what it does suggest and, in fact, requires is that by April of next year, that we have transitioned to three missions--again, missions that were supported significantly by the Iraq Study Group: Force protection--we always have to protect our forces and facilities in the field; counterterrorism, because we never want to give up not only the option but the obligation to strike at terrorist cells wherever they may be, particularly in Iraq; and third, the continued training of the Iraqi security forces.

These I think are missions that are not only critical but they advance our national security interests. Again, this fight against terror cannot be given up. We have to continue it. To the extent that we can create effective Iraqi security forces, mitigates against the real concerns that have been expressed on this floor of the aftermath of what I think is almost an inevitable reduction in our presence. We have to be concerned about that.

One of the vexing things, though, about training the Iraqi security forces, is it is relatively easy to teach map reading and squad drills. It is relatively easy to teach calling for artillery fire. What is hard to teach, because you really can't teach it, is the political reliability, with a small ``p,'' the dedication to the country, the situation in which professional officers are truly professional. That is one of the nagging doubts that everyone has about the Iraqi security forces, particularly the Iraqi police, and to a less degree the Iraqi Army. There are many factors there, too, but we still have to, I think, press forward and try to train these forces.

Our amendment represents the only real possibility of change today, of all those that might be discussed on the floor. It represents not a precipitous withdrawal. It is a phased reduction to missions that are important and are

well within the capacity, I believe, of our military forces to sustain over time. They serve, I think, the much broader interests of the United States.

All of this, of course, has to be complemented by robust political activity, diplomatic activity in Iraq and around the region, something the President has been woefully lacking in his pursuit of, over the many months we have been engaged. We have to make the case--it is difficult to make, but we have to make the case to the neighbors, particularly, that an Iraq that becomes this caldron of instability and chaos that some of my colleagues fear--and, frankly, that we have to at least anticipate, in terms of our diplomacy and some of our military preparation--that this situation would be detrimental to them as much, if not more, than to us.

A chaotic, turbulent, anarchy on the border of any country spells serious problems for that country. That case should begin to be made immediately, not only by our diplomats but by the international community.

We suggest, also, we have to try again to involve others in this effort; not just the United States and Great Britain but others, the international actors. They, too, I think have an interest in a stable region, a stable Iraq.

It has been discussed on this floor that al-Qaida is sitting back and hoping we leave. It is an interesting concept because there is some contradictory evidence. Ayman Zawahiri, who is the second in command of al-Qaida, was quoted recently as suggesting that our departure would actually be something that would cause them some concern. Not because they don't wish us ill, they certainly do. Not because today they don't continue to try to attack us. But because they believe our presence in Iraq, in his words as translated, is a ``historic trap,'' that we are trapped there and that they can use their forces there--not the al- Qaida elements but all the sectarian groups, some of them operating against us because we are there--they can use these forces to attack our troops, diminish our presence, and effectively continue to apply pressure on us.

I think there is a suggestion there that our departure might, in fact, help us in our overall strategy. It certainly will help us to counteract the image which the propagandists, the Zawahiris of the world present, that the United States is committed to destroying the Muslim community by imperialistically invading holy territory. We are in a battle of ideas ultimately, and we are not doing a very good job because what they are able to show throughout the entire Islamic world is our forces in Iraq and our forces in Afghanistan but particularly in Iraq and try to validate their claim, their propaganda, that is why they exist, to resist us.

In the course of our strategy going forward, one should think at least about the efficacy of our presence there, not in terms of a bulwark of security in Iraq but as a way that we, in fact, are playing into the hands of many of these Iraqi terrorists, these international terrorists.

One of the other aspects we face as a reality on the ground is the complex situation in Iraq. Too often I think the President and others try to simplify this as this battle for Iraq is the central front in our battle against al-Qaida. I would argue the central front in our battle against al-Qaida is somewhere in Pakistan. That is where bin Laden is, where Zarqawi is, that is where it is reported that hundreds of Iraqis and others, Europeans, Chechens, are training to be jihadist terrorists across the globe. But regardless of where the central front is, the issue I think we have to recognize and grasp is that our presence in Iraq is something we cannot sustain indefinitely.

We have to focus, I think, on the other threats, focus more diligently on these other threats. Now, we have a situation in Iraq, a complicated situation of Kurds, Shia, and Sunni, together with criminals, together with terrorist elements, al-Qaida. Too often, as I said, we try to make the point it is just about al-Qaida.

We have made progress in Anbar Province because in that Sunni region, the Sunni tribal leaders have united against al-Qaida. But that does not define the most decisive factor in Iraq, and that is the conflict between the Sunni community and the Shia community; a community on one hand, the Sunnis, who feel profound entitlement, and on the other hand, the Shia, who feel a profound sense of paranoia.

I think we have to ask ourselves seriously, will that profound conflict between the two communities be resolved in 30 days, on September 15; will it be resolved in a week; more than that; October 1; will it be resolved 6 months from now?

It has lasted for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is the fuel that is generating the conflict we see in Iraq today. Without the political steps of the Iraqi Government leaders at least to attempt to deal with this issue, our presence will not deal with--I think in the short term--the solution.

Senator Levin and I have proposed what I believe is the most practical, feasible, realistic policy we can pursue today in Iraq; indeed, as I suggest, a policy which perhaps not in the same terms but in the same substance will inevitably be the policy of this country. I hope today, though, we can take decisive action to move to our bill, avoid a filibuster, to vote up or down and move forward with a new direction for Iraq, a new direction for our country.

I note the presence of the senior Senator from West Virginia.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to propound a unanimous consent request, but I would be remiss if I did not recognize Senator Hagel's leadership on this issue and his articulate vision and years ago his brave service as a soldier in our Army.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet today at 7 p.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building to consider an original bill entitled the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, which will provide health care for needy children.

Mr. President, President Bush is fond of slogans over strategy. We have heard them--``bring them on,'' ``cut and run,'' ``as they stand up, we will stand down.'' As my colleague, Senator Snowe, and our cosponsors have pointed out, he is fond of placing hopes over reality. Well, the reality today is threefold.

First, the precise steps must be taken by Iraq's political leaders, and they have not done that. Second, we cannot sustain this level of force past next spring because of the limits of our military structure. Third, the President has lost the confidence of the American people and the public support, and you cannot conduct a strategy without that.

That is not a political comment, that is a strategic tactical comment. According to the Field Manual, and I quote:

At the strategic level gaining and maintaining U.S. public

support for a tactical deployment is critical.

We must change our strategy in Iraq. No strategy can be sustained, regardless of the slogan, without the necessary troops and strong public support, and in this case decisive action by the Iraqi political leadership. The longer we delay--the longer we delay--the more public support erodes and options to avoid a more chaotic redeployment disappear.

To those who urge delay, to wait until September, to wait until next spring, I would ask them to ask several questions: First, after 4 years of observing the political process in Baghdad, political maneuvering without effect, do they believe 6 weeks, until September, 6 months, or even 6 years will fundamentally change the sectarian political dynamic in Baghdad, the violent struggle between Shia, who feel paranoid, and Sunnis, who feel entitled to rule? Even on a tactical level, will 6 weeks or 6 months or 6 years provide irreversible progress on the ground without the political progress necessary?

The Levin-Reed amendment tries to recognize the reality on the ground both there and here and to shape our strategy to sustain an effort to serve the interest of this country, and we hope the region and the world, and I urge passage.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to myself under Senator Kennedy's time.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, and I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their great leadership on this measure.

This very important legislation, which I helped craft as a member of the Senate Education Committee, makes a substantial Federal investment in need-based grant aid for low-income students and helps middle-class students and families pay down and manage their loan debt. It will be a significant contribution to the overall welfare of American families, and it will be the critical key, I believe, to opportunity in America.

Opportunity in America is a strong and direct function of education. Indeed, education is the engine that moves people forward. This legislation renews our commitment to ensuring that all Americans with the drive and talent to go to college are provided the financial means to do so. We understand how critical that is. A college education has now become increasingly necessary. In the generation of my parents, very few people went to college. It was seen as a special distinction, something that was, in some cases, unique. There was a society and an economy then that could accommodate people who graduated from high school who could then go on, with great dedication, diligence, and the skills they learned, to provide for their families and provide for their retirement.

Today, that has all changed. College is a necessity not only for the Nation in terms of expanding our intellectual capital but for families in order to make their way, in order to provide for a decent living, in order to provide for their children and to provide for their retirement.

College graduates, on average, earn 62 percent more than high school graduates. So college education pays off in the bottom line of American families. And, indeed, over a lifetime, the difference in wages between those with a high school diploma versus those with a bachelor's or higher degree exceeds one million dollars.

What we are seeing now in this society is troubling to me because we all understand the importance of an education. One of the key hallmarks in America is opportunity. We pride ourselves, going all the way back to Horatio Alger, as being a place where anyone with a little pluck and a little education can go a long way.

It turns out that recent research is showing that this opportunity is decreasing. Prior to the 1990s, the correlation between a parents' income and their children's income was approximately 20 percent, which is good because it means if you come from modest circumstances you have an 80-percent chance you will rise above your parents' income to the next level of economic well-being in this country. Now that was before the 1990s. In the 1990s, the number rose to 40 percent. So the difference between your parents' income and your income was getting closer and closer. You weren't rising as far above your parents. Today, economists estimate that 60 percent of a son's income is determined by the level of the income of his father.

So we are no longer a place in which you can far exceed your parents' income with a little pluck and a little education. The way we rectify that is to give more people the chance to obtain a higher education. As I have demonstrated with these statistics, that is the key to economic progress in this country. But it is also the key to social progress and maintaining the fabric of America.

As an individual moves through school, we hope they are not just learning about technical skills and applying that to the economy, but that they are also learning to be a good citizen and learning the values of America, values we hope will one day inspire the whole world in a very positive way.

To reverse this troubling trend, a trend in which opportunity is not as readily available in our society, we have to invest in education. I have the particular privilege of being the successor to Senator Claiborne Pell. He recognized in the 1960s that education was the key. We have named, and rightfully so, the Pell grant after Claiborne Pell. He understood profoundly that if you let Americans with drive and talent go on to college, and provide them with the financial resources to do so, they will do great things, and they will compel this country to do great things.

I would say that a lot of the great breakthroughs which have been translated into today's robust economy stem from the fact that 30 years ago, beginning with my generation, young men and women with drive and talent had a chance to go on to college. There are so many people today who are captains of industry, there are so many people today who have invented new products, who have deployed these products into the commercial realm, and they have done so because they went to college and beyond. In another generation they might have had the talent but would have ended up doing something much less educationally advanced because they didn't have a college education. That is a huge insight and a huge contribution to this country.

This legislation builds on Senator Pell's legacy and takes significant steps toward making college more affordable and ensuring that students with talent go forth and get a college degree. I am particularly pleased that under this legislation Rhode Island students will be eligible for an additional $10 million in need-based grant aid next year, and over $86 million in the next 5 years. That is a tremendous input of additional federal financial resources.

The effect of this bill's investment in need-based grant aid is to increase the maximum grant for Pell-eligible students from $4,310 to $5,100 next year and to $5,400 by the year 2011. That increases the average grant in Rhode Island from $430 in 2008 to $2,870.

I am also pleased, as has been discussed by my colleagues, that this legislation includes provisions from my Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act, or FAFSA Act, to significantly increase the number of students automatically eligible for the maximum Pell grant and to reduce the penalty faced by students when they work in order to pay for college.

Specifically, the increase in the Auto-Zero Expected Family Contribution ensures that all students from families with incomes of $30,000 or less will receive a maximum Pell grant. Currently, only families making $20,000 or less automatically qualify for such grants. This provision not only increases the number of low-income students eligible for need-based aid, but also simplifies the financial aid process by providing such students with early

information and assurances of financial aid for college.

Additionally, the income protection allowance protects students who have to work during college so they can earn more without having it count against their financial aid. This legislation doubles the income protection allowance for dependent students from $3,000 to $6,000 over 4 years, and increases the income protection allowance for independent students, including adult learners, veterans, and those students in foster care, by 50 percent over 4 years.

We should reward work, not penalize it. We should recognize that, in today's economy, the price of going to school and of getting to school is going up and up. Many students have to work. As such, these increases will help students and families better afford a college education by stemming the perverse income protection limits that punish students and parents who must work one, two, or more jobs to pay for college.

I am also pleased that the legislation includes provisions to stem the increasing numbers of middle-class families falling further and further into debt to finance a college education. In Rhode Island, 61 percent of students graduating from 4-year institutions in the 2004- 2005 school year graduated with debt at an average of over $20,000 per student. The Higher Education Access Act will help students manage their debt by capping student loan payments at 15 percent of a borrower's discretionary income and forgiving all debt on such loans after 25 years.

So as young people emerge from college with this debt, their payments will be capped, and at some point their loans will be discharged. I think that gives real incentives and real help to people coming out of school, middle-class students who had to borrow money to go to school, and now they can go ahead and discharge those payments over many years at a rate they can afford.

It will also provide loan forgiveness for borrowers who continue in public service careers for 10 years. This is an important aspect. There are so many talented people who want to go into teaching or health care professions, but with all this debt they literally cannot afford to. This legislation gives them an opportunity not only to do what they want to do but to serve their community without being penalized because they have to borrow to get through their college education.

It also helps our military members and families by expanding loan deferments for Active-Duty military service. Certainly there is no group of persons today who deserve that kind of consideration more than our military members and their families.

I hope we build on this legislation by promptly taking up the long overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which passed the Education Committee unanimously last month and includes provisions I authored to simplify the financial aid process and forms; improve the Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership--or LEAP--Program and forge greater state investments in need based grant aid; strengthen college teacher preparation programs; and provide loan forgiveness for librarians.

This is significant legislation. It is important for families in Rhode Island and across the Nation. Let me again commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for their excellent work on this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation becomes law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I believe the Republican leader will be here in approximately 5 minutes. I will, if the Senator from Virginia concurs, suggest the absence of a quorum and wait.

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

I object.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I had the opportunity this morning to listen to the majority leader, Harry Reid, as I presided. He made it clear that he would be perfectly willing to allow a 50-vote majority vote on both the Levin-Reed amendment and the Cornyn amendment or the proposed McConnell amendment. I think if there is any attempt to obstruct the will of the Senate, it is by those who are suggesting that we must have a 60-vote threshold. I think Senator Reid made it clear that he would be happy to entertain a limited debate and a majority vote on the Levin-Reed amendment, the Kyl amendment, or other amendments that may be appropriate on the policy in Iraq.

I also understand at this moment, under the pending unanimous consent, the Senator from Illinois is to be recognized.

That is my understanding. I have no knowledge of any.

Mr. President, today we are facing a critical juncture regarding our operations in Iraq. We can continue with a policy that is straining our military, putting excruciating strain on our military and their families, which is diminishing our standing in the international community and which is rapidly losing the support of the American public--in sum, a policy that cannot be sustained--or we can change, we can make a transition of this mission to focus on objectives that are feasible, to begin a reduction in our forces which will relieve the stress on our military and their families, to initiate complementary and comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic efforts to engage Iraq's neighbors and the rest of the world in bringing a degree of stability to that country.

I believe it is time for such a change. That is why I have joined many of my colleagues, particularly Senator Levin, to propose an amendment to do that. This amendment would first call for a beginning of a reduction of American military forces 120 days after the passage of the legislation. It would give the President the flexibility to pick the precise moment and the precise number of forces and to develop a timetable for their departure. Then it would call for the transition to specific missions by next spring, and those missions would include counterterrorism operations, since we can never give up in our attempts to preemptively attack and destroy terrorist cells--not just in Iraq but in, unfortunately, many other parts of the world.

Second, it would allow the American forces to continue to train Iraqi security forces.

Third, it would clearly state we will protect our forces wherever they are, particularly in Iraq.

It also talks about a very comprehensive diplomatic effort. One of the dramatic failings of this administration has been a one-dimensional policy--military force alone, in most cases unilateral military force. That one-dimensional policy defies strategy, it defies the operational techniques of counterinsurgency, and effectively, I think, has led us, in large part, to Iraq today where we are in a very difficult situation.

As all of our commanders have said persistently over the course of this entire conflict: Military operations alone will not lead to success. They will buy time, they might provide some political space, but they will not lead to success. They are merely a complement and a prelude to the economic, to the political, to the nonmilitary forces that are essential to prevail in a counterinsurgency, stabilize a country, and to ultimately prevail in the type of operation we are witnessing in Iraq.

I believe the President had an opportunity last January to chart a new course. The American people spoke very clearly in the November elections. They wanted change. The Iraqi Study Group, a combination of some of the most gifted minds on both sides of the aisle with respect to foreign policy, gave a framework that talked about and hoped for a redeployment of American forces and significant engagement in diplomatic activities. All of this was at the hands of the President. He essentially said, no, we are going to do a lot more of the same--or a little more of the same. I think at that point, frankly, the American people understood the President wasn't listening or, if he was, it was not getting through.

As a result, I think they began to become very much disenchanted with the course of action of this administration. I don't have to tell anyone in this Chamber or across the globe that this is a decisive turning point in their demands that we act, that this Senate and the House of Representatives take significant action. We are trying to respond to that legitimate concern of the American people by the Levin- Reed amendment that we have proposed.

The President said the goals for the surge were to support Iraqi efforts to quell sectarian violence, ensure territorial integrity and counter Iranian and Syrian activity, encourage strong democratic institutions, and foster the conditions for Iraqi national reconciliation.

The heart of it, as he suggested and others have, was to give the Iraqi leaders the ability to make tough political decisions which were essential to their future and to our continued engagement in Iraq.

Principally among them was to jump start the reconciliation process, bring the Sunni community into government and the civic life of Iraq, to pass legislation to fairly distribute the proceeds of oil revenue, the major source of revenue in that country, and to take other steps-- including provincial elections. None of that has been effectively accomplished.

So if the premise of the surge was to create tactical momentum for political progress, some tactical momentum may be there but very little, if any, political progress. That, I believe, is the reality.

These goals, this effort was difficult for an extra 30,000 troops to accomplish. But it was made much more difficult because of a series of fundamental operational mistakes and strategic flaws that this administration has been engaged in since the beginning of their operations in Iraq. We know that soon after we arrived in Baghdad, after a very successful conventional attack, there were insufficient forces to occupy the country and chaos broke out. The Coalition Provisional Authority, the CPA, embarked on a debaathification program that denied employment and livelihood and, in a sense, hope to thousands of individuals--teachers, bureaucrats--who had been part of the prior regime, mostly because it was the only way they could hold their jobs, and left, particularly the Sunni community, in a situation where they questioned whether there was a place for them in the new, emerging government.

The CPA disestablished the Army; 500,000 individuals with training suddenly found themselves without a future and very quickly many of them found themselves in the insurgency, for many reasons. The Government, the administration, failed to garner support from regional powers to help.

Then the administration embarked on a series of elections. These elections demonstrated the procedure of democracy. But what they failed to grasp, the administration particularly, is that elections alone are insufficient unless there is a governmental capacity to translate those elections into an effective government that serves the needs of its citizens. So we have demonstrations of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of thousands, millions going to the polls. But what happened is they didn't elect a functioning government. They became even more frustrated when they recognized that the Government in Baghdad today doesn't work for them.

All of this was summed up, I think very accurately, by former Secretary of Defense William Perry, on January 25, before the Armed Services Committee, where he stated:

We may never know whether our goal of achieving a

democratic stable government in Iraq was in fact feasible,

since the administration's attempts to do so were so burdened

with strategic errors.

So we start now in a real strategic deficit. Unfortunately, I think the President continues in that vein. The President announced the surge in January: 30,000, roughly, additional forces. It took them many months finally to get in place. The administration claims that since June 15 they have been in place. This was not a surge in the classic military sense of overwhelming force applied rapidly. It was a slow, gradual escalation of a limited force because our force structure limits what we could do. From the very beginning, the ability of this force, deployed in a slow manner, to decisively influence the action on the ground was highly questionable.

I had the opportunity a few days ago to go to Iraq. Many of my colleagues have gone. I was able to travel not only into Baghdad but to get into the countryside to visit forward-operating bases, patrol bases, company-sized bases that are the new disposition of our forces.

First, let me say, as always, I was impressed with the extraordinary professionalism and commitment of the soldiers and marines, the sailors and the airmen who serve us so well. They are doing a superb job. But my conclusion, after spending these 2 brief days in the field, was their tactical momentum, changing the nature of the battlefield, has not, as I said, translated into the political progress needed to truly bring security and stability to Iraq.

And then something else too, the nonrebuttable fact that I see constantly; that is, this surge will come to an end later next spring, not because we have succeeded, not because we have achieved our objectives, but simply because we cannot continue to deploy 160,000 troops in that country. That is a function of our limited forces. Unless the President is prepared to adopt Draconian personnel policies, not 14- to 15-month tours but 18- to 20-month tours; unless he wants to continue to rely upon significant stop-loss, where individuals who are able to leave the service are prevented from doing so; unless he is prepared to do those things, then by next spring the surge ends.

So I think it is appropriate, if we are seeing a situation where just months from now we are going to lower our forces, that we should start thinking

right now of how we do it in a way which will enhance the security of the United States, which will represent to the American people a new direction which they are clamoring for, and which can be sustained, not only in terms of material and personnel but in terms of the support of the American people.

In my opportunity to visit Iraq, I had a chance to sit down with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. They have suggested that they consciously recognize the limitations of our overall infrastructure. They also indicated that they were ready, probably sooner than September, to make a declaration of their advice to the President. I do not think we should wait, either. I think this debate is timely, the legislation is timely, and we should move forward.

Now, we received additional information just a few days ago in the nature of the interim report with respect to the status of the benchmarks. There is an appearance that the military situation in terms of the reliability of Iraqi Army units is encouraging to a degree. But there is still a great deal of work to do with the police force, which is a major component of any type of stable society.

In addition, I think if you drill down below the superficial, there is still the nagging question of the reliability, the political reliability, the professional reliability, of these forces, particularly their leadership. That is something which I think is still in great doubt.

But if you look at most of the political area, there is a string of unsatisfactory grades. The President's report found unsatisfactory progress of enacting and implementing legislation on debaathification reform. Essentially, what we are seeing is a huge conflict between the Sunni and Shia communities, and this conflict is not being abated by the wise action of the Government, a Shia government, to allow Sunnis fuller participation in the civic life and the political life of Iraq.

We are seeing unsatisfactory progress on enacting and implementing major legislation to ensure equitable hydrocarbon resources, distribution of oil and petroleum proceeds. We are seeing unsatisfactory progress on establishing a provincial election law, establishing provincial council authority, and setting a date for provincial elections.

One of the problems that has been nagging in the election process for the last several years in Iraq is that the Sunni community did not participate in significant elections, and therefore they are not adequately represented in certain areas. So, as a result, they haven't got this sense of participation of ownership that is so necessary. Until we have provincial elections, this will continue and further provide excuses, if not real reasons, for Sunnis not to participate fully and not to cooperate fully with the Government and with our forces in the field.

The report also talked about unsatisfactory progress toward providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. commanders without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shia militias. Here is that very- difficult-to-measure factor about the subjective quality of these commanders and leaders--whether they can operate without political interference or whether they are wittingly or unwittingly extensions of the political party.

Just today, if you saw the New York Times, there was an interesting article about how our American forces in Anbar Province were making progress with Sunni tribes, previously our enemies, our opponents, who now were rallying, not necessarily because they agree with us but because they recognize how ruthless and how much al-Qaida is targeting them in going after them. Now, that is progress we should recognize.

But what is disconcerting is the report that the regular Iraqi brigade in that region, primarily Shia, is actually trying to interfere, even in some cases suggest an attack on those Sunnis tribespeople because they see this as a force that will threaten them as they go forward--another example of this Sunni-Shia divide, which is a very difficult political chasm to try to bridge in a short period of time, and that is what we face today in many parts of Iraq.

We also saw unsatisfactory progress in ensuring the Iraqi security forces are providing evenhanded enforcement of the law and unsatisfactory progress as far as limiting militia control of local security. It is a very difficult situation in many respects.

Now, military operations--our military operations are critically important, but here is another reality that I think escapes so many people. Ultimately, only the Iraqis can provide a solution to these political problems, to these sectarian divides. We can suggest what they should do, but unless they do it, these divides will continue to paralyze this country and continue to undermine our efforts to help them stabilize their own country.

I don't think, given the fundamental nature of those issues, that the next 6 weeks until September 15 will make a profound difference. It has been suggested by many commentators that the ability of the Iraqi Government to function--even participate over the next several weeks is limited. So for those people, my colleagues, who call: Wait for September 15, I don't believe or hope that they are suggesting that those profound political problems will be somehow miraculously cured in the next 6 weeks.

As I said before, the inescapable fact, to me, is that by next April, we won't be able to generate 160,000, that somehow our military, sooner rather than later, will have to declare that there is a new strategy that rests not on the surge but on a much smaller force or at least a smaller force, and that force has to deal with these problems or has to deal in a way which the American people will support their continued presence in Iraq. That signal is today for a change in policy, not in September, not next spring, but today.

Now, I alluded to the lack of public support. Some would suggest, well, that is not important. You know, tough leaders have been in situations where the public did not support them. Well, the reality that I learned a long time ago, serving in the military, going to West Point, is that public support is a critical and necessary element of any national security strategy; you can only go so far and so long without it.

We are reaching a point where the American public is clearly declaring that they are deeply concerned about what is going on, deeply distrustful of the President's policy, and my fear, frankly, is unless we take prudent action today, unless the President takes prudent action, that their tolerance for any significant engagement might erode completely by next spring, leaving us with fewer options then than we have today.

A July 6 through 8 Gallup poll found 62 percent of Americans felt the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. A July 11, 2007, Newsweek poll found that 68 percent of Americans disapproved of the way President Bush was handling the situation in Iraq. This is significant because I suggest it undercuts the necessary ingredient of public support for any major military strategic policy. As the President continues to be intransigent and as many of our colleagues give him the luxury of that intransigence, I fear that the American public becomes increasingly disheartened, increasingly desperate, and increasingly unwilling to listen to policies that will provide for a phased and orderly transition of our mission in Iraq.

We also understand the huge cost of this war. We have appropriated $450 billion. As many of my colleagues point out, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that we are spending about $10 billion a month. That, too, is very difficult to sustain because most of this is being financed, if not all of it, through deficit spending, which means we are passing on to the next generation of Americans a huge bill.

But, also, these are real opportunity costs. How are we going to reestablish, in a very narrow vein, our military, in terms of the personnel, their equipment, when the effort is essentially completed one way or the other? How are we going to provide for the next generation of military equipment, the next generation of military tactics and techniques and support personnel if our budget is in such disarray as it is now? I am not even beginning to comment on the huge costs that are unmet in this society in terms of health care, in terms of education, in terms of those forces and those ingredients of national

power, broad national power that are so essential.

As I said earlier, these operations are posing an excruciating stress and strain on military forces. The high operational tempo is really taking its toll on the troops and on their families. Since 2002, 1.4 million troops have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nearly every nondeployed combat brigade in the Active-Duty Army has reported that they are not ready to complete their assigned war mission. These are the troops who have come back from Iraq, from Afghanistan. They are not ready to perform their mission.

We all can remember--I can, at least--Governor Bush talking up before a large crowd in his election campaign and criticizing the Clinton administration because two divisions, as he said, were not--if they were asked to report, they would say: Not ready for duty, sir, to the President. That pales in comparison to the lack of readiness we see today in our military forces. Nearly 9 out of every 10 Army National Guard forces that are not in Iraq or Afghanistan have less than half of the equipment needed to do their job. Their job now is to provide support for Governors in disasters, in problems that are related to their home States.

As I said again and again, military planners do not see how we can sustain 160,000 troops beyond next April. We also recognize that our policies of go-it-alone, our policies of virtually unilateral action are increasingly alienating opinion throughout the world. Once again, to accomplish anything significant, to rally diplomatic forces, to rally all of the forces throughout the world to help us achieve our end, you have to start on the basis of at least understanding and support. We have seen that deteriorate.

We have seen also the situation where, because of our concentration in Iraq, al-Qaida now is resurgent. That is the conclusion of the National Intelligence Estimate that was talked about in the press just last week. We are seeing a situation where Iran is increasing its strategic power. One major factor is the fact that we are tied down with 160,000 troops in Iraq. We are tied down in a way in which many of the individuals in the Iraqi Government whom we depend upon to do and take the actions where it is essential to our success have close personal and political ties to the Iranians. They talk to them on a weekly basis. They take certain directions from them. We are in a situation where our position in Iraq--unwittingly, perhaps--has strengthened the Iranians. We cannot effectively talk about another major military operation when we are having a very difficult time supplying and supporting this operation.

We have effectively taken out two of their traditional opponents in the region, and most difficult and dangerous opponent, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. They now have strategic space. They are using it. They are using it to encourage Hezbollah and Hamas. They are using it to try to achieve nuclear fuel cycles and, on many days we all feel, perhaps, even a nuclear weapon. So what we have seen also is that as these developments take place, the world's opinion is rapidly turning against us.

We are seeing disturbing events in Pakistan and elsewhere where there is a concentration of al-Qaida leadership. I, like so many of my colleagues, was most disturbed a few weeks ago when American news broadcasters were showing films of a graduation ceremony of hundreds of individuals somewhere in Pakistan who were leaving to go off and pursue their jihadist terrorist activities around the world. That is a frightening but real situation.

As a result, Senator Levin and I have worked with our colleagues and have proposed an amendment that responds to these different issues and different threats and also the reality of the situation at home and in Iraq. I am pleased we are supported in our efforts by so many, including our colleagues, Senators Hagel, Smith, and Senator Snowe. This is a bipartisan amendment. It recognizes what the American people are demanding, a change in direction, and what the status on the ground and the status of the military require also, a change in direction. It calls for protecting U.S. and coalition forces, continuing our fight against terrorism, and training Iraqi security forces to step up and discharge their responsibilities. It calls for a beginning of a phased reduction of forces, 120 days after enactment of the legislation. It also calls upon us to begin to take up the issue of real proactive, complimentary diplomatic, and political action that is so necessary to stability in the operation.

One of the factors the President talked about last January, and was alluded to by the Secretary of State and others, was the civilian surge to match the military surge--a surge in advisers, technicians, those people who can help the Iraqis organize their political processes at the city level, the provincial level, and their economic processes. That is not taking place as rapidly as necessary. We are at a critical moment, a moment not to delay but to take appropriate action, a moment to change the direction in Iraq, not simply to wait and wait and wait until events dictate we have to draw down forces. I hope we can prevail our colleagues to support our efforts. I will have more to say. I believe many of my colleagues will have much more to say tomorrow.

I urge passage of the Levin-Reed amendment.