Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon completion of my remarks, Senator Alexander of Tennessee be recognized for 20 minutes.

Madam President, the emergency appropriations bill passed by the Senate this morning is urgently needed for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for our wounded veterans, and for scores of Americans facing natural disasters on the homefront.

I commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for their hard work and close collaboration. As the acting chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I also wish to thank Senator Hutchison and her able staff, along with my committee staff, for the help they gave in crafting the portions of the supplemental which dealt with military construction and veterans affairs.

The total for military construction and veterans affairs in this supplemental is $6.548 billion. It includes in title I $1.644 billion for military construction. Also contained in this section is a proviso restricting the obligation of $280 million until the Secretary of Defense certifies that none of the funds will be used for the purpose of establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. I think that is an important point to clarify.

Title II of the recommendation includes a total of $4.9 billion for military construction and also for activities at the Department of Veterans Affairs. This includes $3.137 billion to restore funding for BRAC, which is very important to reset our forces as they are returned from overseas and to help reconfigure all of the services. This fully funds the request of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 for this account and will keep the BRAC process on track.

Because the costs of the war are not associated strictly with activities on the battlefield, the recommendation includes $1.767 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In crafting the VA portion of this bill, we targeted the funding specifically for purposes of building capacity to deal with the influx of OEF and OIF veterans, hiring claims adjudicators and leveraging technology to expedite benefit claims, and upgrading existing VA facilities.

The VA health care system is one of the best in the world. It has specialties in a number of areas, including spinal cord injury and blind rehabilitation. Because of these specialties, the VA has become a great resource for the treatment of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, due to the nature of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the advances in battlefield medicine, both the DOD health care system and the VA health care system are treating more military personnel with complex and multiple wounds and particularly traumatic brain injuries.

In response to this, in 2005, the Congress provided funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish polytrauma centers. The funding contained in this bill builds on the success of these centers by providing a total of over $163 million in polytrauma care for services ranging from establishing more level 1 comprehensive polytrauma centers to creating polytrauma residential transition rehabilitation programs, to upgrading the entire polytrauma network system.

The bill also adds $150 million for enhancements to readjustment counseling, substance abuse programs, and mental health treatment capacity. These are specialty areas that the VA will need to continue to expand to deal with readjustment issues facing veterans returning from the war zone. In order to begin making progress toward deficiencies identified by the VA's facilities condition assessment and to prevent a possible Walter Reed Building 18 situation, the recommendation includes $550 million in nonrecurring maintenance and $356 million in minor construction.

In addition to funding provided to the Department, the supplemental also includes a general provision directing the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct an independent analysis of the management, structure, and processes that are in place at the VA with regard to providing health care to active duty and veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as providing benefits to veterans of these conflicts. This study will assist the VA and Congress in identifying the cumbersome bureaucratic redtape that far too many of our soldiers go through in their transition to the VA.

The bill also includes a provision requiring the Congressional Budget Office to conduct a budget study of the current and future long-term budget impacts of OEF and OIF on the Department of Veterans Affairs. We know with a number of these young men and women who have been severely injured--many with brain injuries and likely lifespans of 50 or 60 more years--that we will have to provide long-term, consistent, robust funding. We should identify that number now and provide that continuing support for the next several decades.

This supplemental marks the continuing high priority the Senate places on ensuring that yesterday's, today's, and tomorrow's soldiers are cared for in the highest manner once they have done their duty and once they have come home to America.

Let me make one other point. I was somewhat disappointed in this bill because I was attempting to include an amendment to rehabilitate a levee system in Woonsocket, RI, to ensure it is up to Federal standards.

This amendment would have provided $3.25 million for the city of Woonsocket to rehabilitate the levee, including replacing important gate cables. The present cables are about 40 years old. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, failure of a cable during operation could result in an uncontrolled discharge downstream of the dam. Woonsocket is an old industrial city, densely populated, and these levees protect that city.

The Woonsocket project was built between December 1963 and April 1967 by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps estimates that cumulative flood control benefits for the Blackstone Valley project are more than $82 million. This project in place protects at least $82 million worth of property.

Given the importance of this flood protection to Woonsocket and communities on the Blackstone River, I believe Federal assistance is warranted to protect life and property.

These deficiencies were discovered as a direct result of Katrina. We learned in Katrina there were projects, levees that were unsatisfactory. They failed and they caused billions of dollars of damages. Being forewarned--I hope we are forewarned--that having studied these problems, I hope we can now come together in Congress to provide the resources and help these local communities, many of which do not have the resources to sustain this kind of immediate and rapid expenditure.

A recent assessment by the Corps found that the Woonsocket levee and dam is in need of repairs. The Corps has given the city until February 2008 to make these repairs, otherwise the project will no longer be eligible for Federal construction funding through the Army Corps of Engineers.

In addition, if these repairs are not made, the Federal Emergency Management Agency could, and likely will, determine the levee no longer offers adequate flood protection and could require residents to buy flood insurance, which is a very expensive proposition. The city of Woonsocket is economically distressed. It needs Federal assistance. There are other communities around the country that might be in a similar situation.

The devastation wrought by Katrina in New Orleans shows us what could happen. Now we have the knowledge--the foreknowledge--and now we have to act. I am disappointed we did not act in this situation to protect this complex of levees.

I will continue to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues again and again because I believe that with this knowledge, action is required--prompt, appropriate action--to ensure this community is protected.

I wish to make a final point because my colleague has been very patient and very considerate in allowing me to go ahead.

We have included in this supplemental language with respect to our

policy in Iraq which I think is important, indeed, perhaps historical. It recognizes that we should begin a phased redeployment of our forces. It recognizes that we also must maintain certain missions in Iraq-- counterterrorism operations, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting our forces. But it does emphasize we should begin on a date certain going forward to take out our forces at a pace and a level decided by operational commanders. There is a goal--not a fixed deadline--but a goal that our combat forces--those not performing these residual missions--should be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.

This is a solution proposed essentially by the Iraq Study Group. It has been recommended, endorsed by the public sentiment of the American people by a wide margin. It allows us to continue missions that are critical to the safety and security of not only ourselves but of the region, but it does, we hope, disengage us from a potential and sometimes very real civil war in Iraq.

I hope that in the deliberations with the House, we can come up with a measure that combines the best elements of both versions of the spending bill. I hope we can bring this to the President and discuss it with him. It does represent, I think, the sentiment of the American people. It does represent not only the sentiment that we change course in Iraq, but, as this budget does, we fully fund our forces in Iraq.

I am hopeful we can make progress and that we can send to the President a bill, after discussing it with him, that could be signed rather than vetoed. That is my hope at this moment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1821, the Greeks began their 8-year battle for independence against the Ottoman Empire after over 400 years of Turkish rule. The beginning of the Greek Revolution eventually led to Greece's recognition as an autonomous power in 1832, secured with the signing of the Treaty of Constantinople.

The United States and Greece are very fortunate to have always had strong ties. James Monroe, President during the beginning of the Greek Revolution, publicly expressed a ``strong hope'' for Greece, which led to increasing support for the Greek people. These interactions of the past significantly represent the current relationship between the United States and Greece.

Our two countries continue as allies today, sharing the common ideals of freedom and democracy. We fought side by side in both world wars and currently work together in the war on terrorism. Greece has been a strong contributor to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force and in providing security at the Kabul International Airport in Afghanistan. The support that Greece has offered in the war on terrorism has proved to be invaluable.

The historic friendship between Greece and United States has been one of mutual respect and support. A Greek proverb says ``Take an old man's counsel and an experienced man's knowledge.'' The United States has been continuously influenced by the history, principles, and culture of Greece. I am proud to recognize March 25 as Greek Independence Day, including as an original cosponsor of a Senate resolution to so designate this day. I send all Greek-Americans in Rhode Island and throughout the world my best wishes as they celebrate their independence.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee for his efforts to include my bipartisan amendment to increase the allocation for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to $3.2 billion in the budget resolution. As the chairman knows, this is the level that was recommended in a bipartisan letter signed by 35 governors and is the minimum level of funding needed to allow States to provide the same level of assistance as in fiscal year 2006.

The rise in energy prices has led to an increase in the number of families seeking and receiving assistance. In fiscal year 2006, with an additional $1 billion, over 500,000 additional households were served by LIHEAP, increasing the total to 5.6 million. However, that represents less than 15 percent of the eligible households.

LIHEAP is not only a heating program, it is also a cooling program. The number of households receiving cooling assistance increased to 540,000 in fiscal year 2006, up from 315,000 in 2005.

LIHEAP provides a vital safety net for our Nation's low-income households by helping them remain healthy and secure during bitterly cold winters in the North and hot summers in the South. For many low- income families, disabled individuals, and senior citizens living on fixed incomes, home energy costs are unaffordable. Low-income families pay close to 18 percent of their income on energy. The average family only pays 4 percent.

According to a recent survey conducted by the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, NEADA, families who receive LIHEAP are very poor and have few choices but to cut back on food, medicine, and other essentials in order to pay their home energy costs when funding is inadequate to meet the need. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said that without LIHEAP, they would have had to keep their home at an unsafe or unhealthy temperature. Fifty-four percent said that they would have had their electric or gas service disconnected if LIHEAP benefits had not been available.

Increasing funding for this vital and valuable program remains a top priority for me. I am grateful that the Senate has accepted this bipartisan amendment.

I also want to reiterate my comments from yesterday about this budget resolution. Chairman Conrad has worked tirelessly to ensure that this resolution meets the pressing needs of the American people and restores the fiscal discipline that has been lacking for several years.

We have been charting an unsustainable fiscal policy course over the last 6 years. Instead of a $505 billion surplus in 2006, Republican fiscal policies left us with a deficit of $248 billion. Reversing this course and restoring balance is essential to our economic well-being. This budget takes the necessary steps toward equilibrium by achieving a balanced budget by 2012 and providing funding for essential programs that improve the lives of hardworking Americans who have been struggling during this sluggish economic recovery.

It includes necessary funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP; a program that provides a vital safety net to millions of families who do not earn enough to buy health insurance for their children.

The budget also includes language that allows for the establishment of an affordable housing fund financed by government-sponsored enterprises. This affordable housing fund will provide grants for the production, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing for very low-income families.

The budget resolution reinforces our commitment to America's veterans by including $43.1 billion for discretionary veterans' programs and rejecting the President's proposed increases in fees on veterans enrolled in the VA health care system.

I was also pleased to see that this budget rejects the President's proposed cuts in funding for education and training programs and instead appropriately invests in these necessary endeavors, in part by including significant increases in funding for the Department of Education--$6.1 billion above the President's request and $4 billion above the FY07 inflation-adjusted level.

I thank Chairman Conrad and his staff for their hard work in producing this budget, which is both supportive of the needs of the American people and fiscally sound. I will support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, I thank the Senator for his gracious yielding of time and for his exceptional work on this budget.

I wish to speak particularly to the issue of SCHIP. Shortly, Senator Cornyn will offer an amendment that was offered in the Budget Committee and defeated there, and it should be defeated on the floor of the Senate. His amendment seeks to tie the hands of the Finance Committee and make policy determinations on a program that has direct impact on millions of American families and children.

Millions of low-income Americans receive their health care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. This program is a safety net for low-income families. Rhode Island has provided extraordinary support to families working and struggling to provide health care for their children. By most estimates, the number of uninsured is going up in this country--most recently estimated at about 46 million. If we undermine the SCHIP program, those numbers will increase and particularly, obviously, in the ranks of uninsured children.

SCHIP provides approximately 20,000 Rhode Islanders with health insurance coverage. My State worked hard on a bipartisan basis-- Republican Governors, Democratic Governors, and the Democratic assembly--to build a health care system for children that works. A few years ago, we had one of the lowest rates of uninsured children in the Nation because of SCHIP and local efforts. In the last several years, the rate of uninsured children, even in Rhode Island, has gone up.

We have to have the resources to keep this program going forward.

These dollars mean the difference between children getting access to health care and being denied health care. It affects their ability to learn in school and their long-term ability to be productive and contributing citizens. This is a vital program.

We see these shortfalls perennially in some States that aggressively support the SCHIP program. We have been able to make fixes in the past, redistributing funds. This time, we need a budget--and Senator Conrad has provided it--that will give us the resources and flexibility to reauthorize SCHIP so it will work in the future.

Senators Boxer, Conrad, and Rockefeller have put forth responsible amendments to deal with the SCHIP policy issue. Unlike the proposed amendment of Senator Cornyn, the Baucus-Rockefeller amendment puts the needs and interests of children first in the context of reauthorization.

I believe this budget, including up to $50 billion to expand SCHIP, is exactly the right direction. When you go to Rhode Island, or any State, and you talk to particularly the working people who are struggling to make ends meet, the No. 1 issue on their minds is: How can I afford health care insurance?

I had a neighbor rush across the street last Friday morning, while I was clearing the snow off my car, who said: I don't know what I can do; my health insurance just went up 66 percent. That is the crisis real Americans face every day. This is a response--a very important response--but not a final answer to health care in the United States. Goodness gracious, if we cannot take care of children and give them health care, then what else should we do? What is more important than that?

I think we have to recognize that some States, such as mine, have been able to expand this program to include the parents of some of these children. That is a positive step because it provides better health care for the whole family. In fact, the statistics and analyses show if you can have a family treated as a whole, you have a better health outcome. Also, it provides, again, another way to stop the ever increasing number of uninsured Americans, be they children or adults.

I congratulate Chairman Conrad for his work and commitment. I hope when we leave this budget debate, we can proclaim loudly and proudly we have expanded coverage health care coverage for children in this country. That is something I think we can all take great pride and claim satisfaction in doing. I urge us to reject the Cornyn amendment and support this budget. I commend Senator Conrad for what he has done.

I will make several quick points about the budget. It restores fiscal discipline. I commend the chairman for that. It adds important assets and commitments to affordable housing funds. The language allows us to go forward on that. Education and veterans are important priorities. This budget is one of which the people can be proud. I know the people of Rhode Island will be.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I address an issue of critical importance to Rhode Island's Federal Wage System employees.

Federal Wage System (FWS) employees are the Federal Government's blue-collar employees. In Rhode Island, these workers include janitors, mechanics, machine tool operators, munitions and explosive operators, electricians, and engineers. The majority of FWS employees in the United States work in the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Indeed, Naval Station Newport employs the most FWS workers in the Narragansett Bay area. These workers are essential to the government's daily operation, and the work that they perform is important to our national security.

Regrettably, in the Narragansett Bay wage area, Federal blue-collar workers are faced with one of the lowest FWS pay scales, while residing in an area with one of the highest costs of living. The significant disparities between wages in the Narragansett Bay wage area and the proximate Boston and Hartford wage areas raise serious questions about the fairness and equity of these pay scales. In Rhode Island, an average wage grade worker earns $18.47 per hour, whereas the same worker in Boston earns $20.77 per hour and an employee in Hartford earns $19.99 per hour. Competitive compensation is the best way to ensure the retention of qualified and effective workers. Rhode Island should not suffer the loss of experienced Federal employees to the same jobs, at the same grade levels, just miles away because of better pay.

The chair of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), which advises the Office of Personnel Management on decisions dealing with the FWS pay scales, has been left vacant, leaving the FPRAC unable to make needed decisions regarding these wage areas.

Due to the lack of a chair and any action by FPRAC or OPM, which I have long urged to resolve this matter, I am reintroducing the Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness Act, and I am pleased that Senator Whitehouse is joining me as a cosponsor. This bill will merge the Narragansett Bay wage area with the Boston, MA, wage area to provide regional pay equity to Rhode Island Federal blue-collar workers. Merging these two wage areas will keep Federal workers in Rhode Island from abandoning their government jobs for higher paying positions elsewhere in southern New England, and help the approximately 500 wage rate workers in Rhode Island better provide for their families. I urge that this long pending inequality be addressed.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce two bipartisan bills to expand access to college for students and their families.

We are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress for the first time since 1998. The key to this reauthorization will be ensuring that we make a substantial Federal investment in need-based grant aid. I am pleased we took a significant first step down this path last month by increasing the maximum Pell Grant, the Federal Government's primary source of need-based financial aid, for the first time in four years. However, we are still far from the robust lift Congress provided students and their families in the mid-1970s, when the maximum Pell Grant covered 84 percent of costs at a public 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 32 percent.

There has also been a concurrent increase in college costs. According to a recent report by the College Board, for the 2006-07 school year, tuition rose 6.3 percent at 4-year public colleges and 5.9 percent for 4-year private institutions. The combination of declining Federal investments in need-based aid and sharp increases in college costs has priced more and more qualified individuals out of college.

This is particularly troubling, given the strong correlation between educational attainment, employment, and wages. A college education has now increasingly become a necessary requirement for upward income mobility. College graduates, on average, earn 62 percent more than high school graduates. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings between those with a high school diploma and a bachelor's or higher degree exceeds $1 million.

To help increase the amount of need-based grant aid to low-income students and fulfill their unmet financial aid need, today I introduce the ACCESS, Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships, Act, cosponsored by Senators Collins, Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, and

Sanders. This legislation improves the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program by forging a new Federal incentive for States to form partnerships with businesses, colleges, and private or philanthropic organizations to provide low-income students with increased need-based grant aid, early information and assurance of aid eligibility (beginning in middle school), and early intervention, mentoring, and outreach services. Research has shown that college access programs that combine these elements are successful in making the dream of higher education a reality. Students participating in such programs are more financially and academically prepared, and thus, more likely to enroll in college and persist to degree completion.

Since 1972, the Federal-State partnership embodied by LEAP, with modest Federal support, has helped leverage State grant aid to low-and moderate-income students. Without this important Federal incentive, many States would never have established need-based financial aid programs, and many States would not continue to maintain such programs. Last year, States matched approximately $65 million in Federal LEAP funds with over $840 million in supplemental need-based aid. By way of example, in my home State of Rhode Island, the Federal investment of approximately $350,000 in LEAP funds spurred the State to expend over $13 million in need-based aid.

The second bill I introduce today, the FAFSA Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act, cosponsored by Senators Collins, Kennedy, Murray, and Sanders, has several key components to make the college financial aid application process both simple and certain. First, our legislation would allow more students to qualify for an automatic-zero expected family contribution, or auto-zero, and align the auto-zero eligibility levels, income of $30,000 or less, with the standards of other Federal means-tested programs like school lunch, SSI, and food stamps. Second, the FAFSA Act would establish a short paper FAFSA or EZ-FAFSA for students who qualify for the auto-zero. Third, the bill phases out the long form, using the savings to utilize ``smart'' technology to create a tailored web-based application form and ensure that students answer only the questions needed to determine financial aid eligibility in the state in which they reside. For those students who do not have access to the Internet, we propose creating a free telefile system for filing by phone.

The FAFSA Act would also emphasize providing students with the opportunity to complete financial applications earlier in order to receive early estimates of aid eligibility. This legislation would create a pilot program to test an early application system under which dependent students would apply for an aid estimate in their junior year, using the student's prior/prior year income (PPY). The pilot program also includes a requirement that the Secretary study the feasibility, benefits, and adverse effects of utilizing information from the IRS in order to simplify the financial aid process.

I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations on these bills. I am also pleased that both bills are supported by a range of higher education and student groups, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Association of College Admission Counseling, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the United States Student Association, and the College Parents of America. The FAFSA Act is supported by the Council of Graduate Schools as well.

We must act on these bills and continue to push for increased Federal investment in need-based aid to middle- and low-income students and their families. All too often successful students give up on a college education because they think there is no way they can ever afford it. We must ensure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and work for their inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

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

Mr. President, today I address an issue of critical importance to Rhode Island's Federal Wage System employees.

Federal Wage System (FWS) employees are the Federal Government's blue-collar employees. In Rhode Island, these workers include janitors, mechanics, machine tool operators, munitions and explosive operators, electricians, and engineers. The majority of FWS employees in the United States work in the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Indeed, Naval Station Newport employs the most FWS workers in the Narragansett Bay area. These workers are essential to the government's daily operation, and the work that they perform is important to our national security.

Regrettably, in the Narragansett Bay wage area, Federal blue-collar workers are faced with one of the lowest FWS pay scales, while residing in an area with one of the highest costs of living. The significant disparities between wages in the Narragansett Bay wage area and the proximate Boston and Hartford wage areas raise serious questions about the fairness and equity of these pay scales. In Rhode Island, an average wage grade worker earns $18.47 per hour, whereas the same worker in Boston earns $20.77 per hour and an employee in Hartford earns $19.99 per hour. Competitive compensation is the best way to ensure the retention of qualified and effective workers. Rhode Island should not suffer the loss of experienced Federal employees to the same jobs, at the same grade levels, just miles away because of better pay.

The chair of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), which advises the Office of Personnel Management on decisions dealing with the FWS pay scales, has been left vacant, leaving the FPRAC unable to make needed decisions regarding these wage areas.

Due to the lack of a chair and any action by FPRAC or OPM, which I have long urged to resolve this matter, I am reintroducing the Rhode Island Federal Worker Fairness Act, and I am pleased that Senator Whitehouse is joining me as a cosponsor. This bill will merge the Narragansett Bay wage area with the Boston, MA, wage area to provide regional pay equity to Rhode Island Federal blue-collar workers. Merging these two wage areas will keep Federal workers in Rhode Island from abandoning their government jobs for higher paying positions elsewhere in southern New England, and help the approximately 500 wage rate workers in Rhode Island better provide for their families. I urge that this long pending inequality be addressed.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce two bipartisan bills to expand access to college for students and their families.

We are slated to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress for the first time since 1998. The key to this reauthorization will be ensuring that we make a substantial Federal investment in need-based grant aid. I am pleased we took a significant first step down this path last month by increasing the maximum Pell Grant, the Federal Government's primary source of need-based financial aid, for the first time in four years. However, we are still far from the robust lift Congress provided students and their families in the mid-1970s, when the maximum Pell Grant covered 84 percent of costs at a public 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 32 percent.

There has also been a concurrent increase in college costs. According to a recent report by the College Board, for the 2006-07 school year, tuition rose 6.3 percent at 4-year public colleges and 5.9 percent for 4-year private institutions. The combination of declining Federal investments in need-based aid and sharp increases in college costs has priced more and more qualified individuals out of college.

This is particularly troubling, given the strong correlation between educational attainment, employment, and wages. A college education has now increasingly become a necessary requirement for upward income mobility. College graduates, on average, earn 62 percent more than high school graduates. Over a lifetime, the gap in earnings between those with a high school diploma and a bachelor's or higher degree exceeds $1 million.

To help increase the amount of need-based grant aid to low-income students and fulfill their unmet financial aid need, today I introduce the ACCESS, Accessing College through Comprehensive Early Outreach and State Partnerships, Act, cosponsored by Senators Collins, Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, and

Sanders. This legislation improves the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program by forging a new Federal incentive for States to form partnerships with businesses, colleges, and private or philanthropic organizations to provide low-income students with increased need-based grant aid, early information and assurance of aid eligibility (beginning in middle school), and early intervention, mentoring, and outreach services. Research has shown that college access programs that combine these elements are successful in making the dream of higher education a reality. Students participating in such programs are more financially and academically prepared, and thus, more likely to enroll in college and persist to degree completion.

Since 1972, the Federal-State partnership embodied by LEAP, with modest Federal support, has helped leverage State grant aid to low-and moderate-income students. Without this important Federal incentive, many States would never have established need-based financial aid programs, and many States would not continue to maintain such programs. Last year, States matched approximately $65 million in Federal LEAP funds with over $840 million in supplemental need-based aid. By way of example, in my home State of Rhode Island, the Federal investment of approximately $350,000 in LEAP funds spurred the State to expend over $13 million in need-based aid.

The second bill I introduce today, the FAFSA Financial Aid Form Simplification and Access Act, cosponsored by Senators Collins, Kennedy, Murray, and Sanders, has several key components to make the college financial aid application process both simple and certain. First, our legislation would allow more students to qualify for an automatic-zero expected family contribution, or auto-zero, and align the auto-zero eligibility levels, income of $30,000 or less, with the standards of other Federal means-tested programs like school lunch, SSI, and food stamps. Second, the FAFSA Act would establish a short paper FAFSA or EZ-FAFSA for students who qualify for the auto-zero. Third, the bill phases out the long form, using the savings to utilize ``smart'' technology to create a tailored web-based application form and ensure that students answer only the questions needed to determine financial aid eligibility in the state in which they reside. For those students who do not have access to the Internet, we propose creating a free telefile system for filing by phone.

The FAFSA Act would also emphasize providing students with the opportunity to complete financial applications earlier in order to receive early estimates of aid eligibility. This legislation would create a pilot program to test an early application system under which dependent students would apply for an aid estimate in their junior year, using the student's prior/prior year income (PPY). The pilot program also includes a requirement that the Secretary study the feasibility, benefits, and adverse effects of utilizing information from the IRS in order to simplify the financial aid process.

I was pleased to work with the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and a host of other higher education organizations and charitable foundations on these bills. I am also pleased that both bills are supported by a range of higher education and student groups, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Association of College Admission Counseling, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the United States Student Association, and the College Parents of America. The FAFSA Act is supported by the Council of Graduate Schools as well.

We must act on these bills and continue to push for increased Federal investment in need-based aid to middle- and low-income students and their families. All too often successful students give up on a college education because they think there is no way they can ever afford it. We must ensure that every student who works hard and plays by the rules gets the opportunity to live the American Dream.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these bills and work for their inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Coleman, in introducing the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

This bipartisan legislation seeks to achieve several important goals in our battle against childhood cancer. Specifically, it will expand support for pediatric cancer research, foster the career development of more pediatric oncologists, establish a population-based national childhood database, and provide essential information and support to help families dealing with this devastating disease. Childhood cancer impacts thousands of children and their families each year. While we have made great strides in treating cancer, we have made relatively little progress in advancing our understanding of the most common forms of pediatric cancer. This legislation will provide the focus and resources to hopefully one day find a cure.

Each year, more than 12,500 children are diagnosed with cancer, and more than 2,300 of them lose their courageous battle with the disease. Pediatric cancer not only takes a toll on the child, it affects the entire family--the parents, siblings, friends, and extended family all suffer when a child has cancer. I have had the honor of meeting one such family from Warwick, RI who has taken the pain and devastation of losing their nine year old son to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive childhood cancer, and turned their tragedy into a message of hope. The Haight family is committed, in memory of their son Ben, to providing education, advocacy, and support to other families going through a similar struggle with pediatric cancer. I never had a chance to meet Ben Haight but his mother Nancy has told me of his passion for life and his tremendous sense of strength and courage. Ben fought every day during his four and a half year battle with this disease and his tragic story highlights the importance of this legislation.

It is my hope that the bill we are introducing today will help to step up our efforts with regard to childhood cancer so that one day Ben's story, and thousands of other children like him, will be one of survival. In Rhode Island alone, about eight children each year succumb to various forms of childhood cancer. Each of these children had hopes, dreams, and desires that will never be fulfilled and one cannot quantify the impact each of these children could have had on their communities and on society as a whole. We need to be doing more to give these children a chance to grow up and reach their full potential. It is expected that by 2010 one out of 350 adults will be a survivor of childhood cancer.

The Conquer Childhood Cancer Act will build the foundation necessary to enhance federal efforts in the fight against childhood cancer and will also complement the incredible work of the network of organizations around the country dedicated to the prevention and cure of pediatric cancer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues toward swift passage of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the record.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Coleman, in introducing the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act.

This bipartisan legislation seeks to achieve several important goals in our battle against childhood cancer. Specifically, it will expand support for pediatric cancer research, foster the career development of more pediatric oncologists, establish a population-based national childhood database, and provide essential information and support to help families dealing with this devastating disease. Childhood cancer impacts thousands of children and their families each year. While we have made great strides in treating cancer, we have made relatively little progress in advancing our understanding of the most common forms of pediatric cancer. This legislation will provide the focus and resources to hopefully one day find a cure.

Each year, more than 12,500 children are diagnosed with cancer, and more than 2,300 of them lose their courageous battle with the disease. Pediatric cancer not only takes a toll on the child, it affects the entire family--the parents, siblings, friends, and extended family all suffer when a child has cancer. I have had the honor of meeting one such family from Warwick, RI who has taken the pain and devastation of losing their nine year old son to neuroblastoma, a very aggressive childhood cancer, and turned their tragedy into a message of hope. The Haight family is committed, in memory of their son Ben, to providing education, advocacy, and support to other families going through a similar struggle with pediatric cancer. I never had a chance to meet Ben Haight but his mother Nancy has told me of his passion for life and his tremendous sense of strength and courage. Ben fought every day during his four and a half year battle with this disease and his tragic story highlights the importance of this legislation.

It is my hope that the bill we are introducing today will help to step up our efforts with regard to childhood cancer so that one day Ben's story, and thousands of other children like him, will be one of survival. In Rhode Island alone, about eight children each year succumb to various forms of childhood cancer. Each of these children had hopes, dreams, and desires that will never be fulfilled and one cannot quantify the impact each of these children could have had on their communities and on society as a whole. We need to be doing more to give these children a chance to grow up and reach their full potential. It is expected that by 2010 one out of 350 adults will be a survivor of childhood cancer.

The Conquer Childhood Cancer Act will build the foundation necessary to enhance federal efforts in the fight against childhood cancer and will also complement the incredible work of the network of organizations around the country dedicated to the prevention and cure of pediatric cancer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues toward swift passage of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the record.

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

Madam President, we are debating a serious proposal with respect to the future of our involvement in Iraq and the future of Iraq and, indeed, that region of the world. I believe the proposal Senator Harry Reid of Nevada advanced is a sensible way to begin to change our policy, so it can be sustained over time and it can lead to a successful termination of our operations in Iraq but, more importantly, give the Iraqis the opportunity to establish a stable government in a very difficult part of the world.

The elements of the proposal that Senator Reid has advanced, are right on target. First, to define the mission in a way that they can be fully supported by the United States and also that they are congruent with our best interests in the region and the world. Next, obviously, is force protection. We have to be able to assure our forces that they can protect themselves at all times. Third, to continue to develop the Iraqi security forces--not just to put guns in their hands but to develop their capacity to do other things, such as civil affairs, intelligence operations, those critical military skills that will allow them to be an effective force in their country, to bring not just stability but a sense of competence, coherence to the operation of their Government.

The next mission is the constant attention to counterterrorism. This is a mission that I believe transcends every border in the world. Wherever there are those elements that are actively plotting to attack us or our allies, we should be prepared, together with local authorities, if they are cooperative, to take these elements out very dramatically, preemptively. That is essentially what we did in Somalia, without the presence of hundreds of thousands of American troops in Somalia. But we had the special operations capacity, intelligence, and the cooperation of local parties so we could do that.

Those are the three critical missions I believe we have in Iraq that will be longer term. But I think, also, when recognizing those missions, we can begin to recognize and begin to redeploy our combat brigades that are there. They are essentially now engaged in a civil war, a sectarian battle between the Sunnis and Shia in Baghdad, but not just there. These forces we have to begin to redeploy away from Iraq. Initially, they could be redeployed within the country, to adjacent countries, and at some time back to their home stations. I think this is the wisest course.

I hope, as the legislation suggests, we could at least have as a goal March of 2008 for the redeployment of these combat brigades, understanding that these residual missions--force protection, training Iraqi security forces, and counterterrorism--will endure. That is a wise policy that is consistent with our national security objectives and also consistent with our ability and the ability of the American people to sustain these efforts over many months.

The continued course of simply adding more troops and hoping for the best, which is the President's strategy, is not going to work. More importantly, I cannot see it being sustained indefinitely by the American people or supported by a terribly overstretched military force, particularly our Army and Marine Corps.

This whole approach to Iraq, I believe, from the very beginning, was a flawed strategy. It disregarded fundamental aspects of any coherent strategy--identify the most serious threat and apply adequate, very robust resources to the threat. Iraq wasn't the most serious threat in that region. Iran is much more powerful and much more potentially dangerous and, also, at that juncture, the most serious threat, and still lingering are the international terror cells.

But this administration, against my judgment, entered into this conflict in Iraq. Not only did they have a flawed strategy, but the execution has been horrific, incompetent. Today, we are left with very few good choices. One of the most revealing aspects of why the strategic decisions made by the administration were so faulty was given a few weeks ago when I asked Admiral

McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence: What is the most likely source of an attack on the United States, groups in Iraq or groups in Pakistan? His answer, without any delay, immediately, was: ``Pakistan, of course.'' So we have invested billions and billions of dollars, 140,000-plus troops, over 3,000 Americans killed in action, many more seriously wounded, and yesterday, the highest intelligence official in the country says the most serious potential threat to our homeland, an existential attack on the order of 9/11, is from our ally Pakistan. That is because, once we focused on Iraq, we took our focus off Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have allowed the Taliban to rehabilitate itself. The Pakistanis have been unable to deny a safe haven to bin Laden, Zawihiri, and other key elements of al-Qaida's leadership who are not only surviving but beginning to reorganize and reassert themselves as directors or aspirers or at least coconspirators with other terror groups around the world. That is a stunning indictment of the strategy that this administration has unveiled.

There are other costs to this strategy. You will recall the ``axis of evil.'' The President boldly announced that it was Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. Well, frankly, after ignoring the North Koreans for many years, now the administration is seeking to cut a deal with them with respect to their nuclear weapons. But this is a much worse deal than the administration had when it stepped into office. In 2000, their plutonium was capped by international inspectors on the ground. But through a series of miscues, the administration allowed the North Koreans to take away their plutonium, create up to 10 nuclear devices, we think, test long-range missiles and, in a shocking act, detonate a nuclear device, becoming part of the nuclear club. Now we are offering them essentially the same terms that could have been had, without all this damage, many years ago.

With respect to Iran, we know one of the consequences, one of the costs of our operations in Iraq is that Iran is in a much more secure strategic position today. They have colleagues and cohorts who are integral parts of the Government in Baghdad. The people we rely on, the Maliki Government, has huge support from people who have spent years, who have fought alongside the Iranians against the Iraqis. Yet we are supporting, as we must, the Maliki Government. But we should all recognize the huge influence Iran has today as a result of this strategy.

Now, these costs are strategic costs, but there are some obvious costs in terms of dollars and cents. We are spending in Iraq about $8.4 billion a month. That level of effort is difficult to sustain. In Afghanistan, we are spending less but still significant dollars. All these costs are being funded from the supplemental. We are borrowing the money from the next generation of Americans to pay for these efforts.

The President already set up another supplemental request that will be pending in a few days. It includes $93 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will bring the total for this fiscal year-- what was in the original budget, together with the supplemental--to $145 billion. We will likely see totals such as that in succeeding years.

In the 5 years the United States has been engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan--Iraq particularly--we have spent about $530 billion. That is a huge sum of money. That is very difficult to sustain. We can also see the cost in terms of supplying the Army. We have a situation where units are without equipment. Our National Guard is in disarray. Now we are going to, once again, put a huge demand on our military forces to support this escalation. It has been suggested to me that, shortly, upward of nine brigades of National Guard and Reserve forces will be notified for redeployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, our citizen soldiers will be taken from their homes and sent overseas. When they go this time, they will not have quite the same equipment as they did the last time because National Guard equipment is in disrepair, even worse than the regular forces. Their training will likely not be as authentic because of the difficulty in getting out to the national training centers. They might do most of the training at their home stations. We are beginning to see this accumulation of costs reflected in many ways.

A few days ago, the Boston Globe published a story in which it showed that because of the retirement and resignations of captains in the Army, senior NCOs in the Army, promotion rates have been going up astronomically to fill these vacancies. That is probably the worst potential trend for any military force, because without those capable company grade leaders, we will not be able to assure the American public we have the same level of professional skill that we have today.

I believe, for all these reasons, the resolution proposed by Senator Harry Reid is the right course of action. But there will be an alternative approach, and that is a proposal by Senator Gregg with respect to funding. A few points can be made about that. The Gregg resolution misinterprets the Constitution by saying the Congress's only role is simply to rubberstamp what the President does--or worst case, they can only take funds away. That is not the case at all.

As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, way back in 1799, the Supreme Court of the United States clearly said that Congress had the right to make decisions with respect to national policy involving foreign affairs. In fact, their decision essentially said the Congress could pass a law that would allow the President to stop ships going into certain ports but not leaving certain ports.

Many of my colleagues on the other side came down and talked about us micromanaging. That is micromanaging. It is constitutionally permissible, perhaps, but it is not something we will do. It is not something we would want to do. We want to give the President the latter two that he needs but for missions that are consistent with our national security.

Under the Gregg resolution's interpretation of the Constitution, Congress's only responsibility seems to be to fund whatever the President asks.

That I don't think is appropriate constitutionally or with respect to our obligations as thoughtful participants in the policy process along with the President.

Senator Murray will offer an alternative, and that alternative strongly supports our troops but also properly interprets the Constitution by stating the President and the Congress have shared responsibilities for the decisions involving our Armed Forces.

I suspect if you took the Gregg logic to the extreme, if the President sent up a funding bill and we thought it was inadequate, then I suspect we couldn't do anything because, after all, all we can do is either agree with the President or cut off the funds. That is not the case at all.

I can recall the President sending up to the Senate budgets that did not have enough resources for armored humvees, body armor, et cetera. It was this Congress that put more money in because we have a role when it comes to funding the operations of the military.

When it comes to Presidential policy, it is not simply accepting it or taking away the money; it is altering that policy if it is wrong, it is redefining missions, and it is fully resourcing those missions which are the product of this interaction between the President and the Congress.

A quote from Senator Murray's resolution:

. . . the President and Congress should not take any action

that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States, and

will provide necessary funds for training, equipment, and

other support for troops in the field, as such actions will

ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and

carrying out their assigned missions.

That I think is a much more accurate, appropriate, and sensible approach to the issue of shared responsibility.

In addition, the Murray resolution makes it clear that the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to take actions that help our troops and our veterans. We have had a lot of talk about not funding the troops. But wait a second, it was the President who sent in forces without a plan. It was the President who sent in forces without adequate armored humvees. It was the President who sent in forces without body armor. It was the President and his Department of Defense who weren't aware of the travesties that were taking place at Walter Reed when it comes to veterans. It is the President's Veterans Administration that refused a

few years ago to ask for adequate money for the Veterans Administration hospitals because of the new demand from veterans.

If anyone over the last several years failed to fund the troops properly, it is the President. So our concerns should be directed at his failures to fund the troops rather than that of Congress.

This is a collaborative process that both the White House and the Congress have to ensure our forces have the resources they need, but we also have to make sure they are performing the missions most important to the United States. By endorsing the Murray resolution, we are sending a clear message of our joint responsibility to fully fund our soldiers in the field, and by supporting Majority Leader Reid's resolution, we are sending a signal that the right policy, phased redeployment, carefully defined missions, providing a stable regional approach to Iraq and, in the long term, redeploying troops so we can face with more flexibility the challenges of a North Korea, of an Iran, of places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and places perhaps at this moment we are not aware of but will suddenly burst onto the front page because of the presence of terrorists or other destabilizing activities.

I urge strong support of the resolution supported by Majority Leader Reid and the resolution supported by Senator Murray.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the posture of the United States Army in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 15, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the U.S. Coast Guard budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the

Senate on Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 4 p.m. in the President's Room, S-216, of the Capitol building. We will be considering the following:

Agenda

1. S. 624, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

2. S. 845, Keeping Seniors Safe From Falls Act of 2007

3. S. 657, the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act of 2007

4. W. Craig Vanderwagen, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of Gregory B. Cade to be Administrator of the U.S. Fire Administration at the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, March 15, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Committee Authorization

Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation into Replacement of U.S. Attorneys

II. Bills

S. 236, The Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act of 2007; Feingold, Sununu

S. 261, Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007; Cantwell, Specter, Durbin, Kyl, Feinstein, Feingold, Kohl

S. 376, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007; Leahy, Specter, Kyl, Cornyn, Grassley, Sessions

S. 231, A bill to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program; Feinstein, Cornyn, Kohl, Durbin, Biden, Grassley

S. 368, COPS Improvements Act of 2007; Biden, Leahy, Kohl, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Specter

S. 627, Safe Babies Act; Harkin, Specter

III. Resolutions

S. Con. Res. 14, Commemorating the 85th anniversary of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association; Snowe

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 15, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a Business Meeting..

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 15, 2007.

The agenda to be considered: Hearing on Water Resources Needs and the President's Budget Proposal for the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the United States policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007. I think it represents a sound policy and strategy that will help us achieve our objectives not only in Iraq but in the region, and not only in the region but across the globe.

Let me first begin by saying I have heard many of the opponents suggest this Senate has but one choice: either to cut off funding or to allow the President to continue to pursue any policy he feels is appropriate. That is a false choice, similar to the false choice the President presented to this Senate in 2002 and 2003. That choice was that we could either invade Iraq or step back and watch them morph into a much more serious threat. In fact, there were diplomatic options. There was the possibility of effectively using U.N. inspectors. So I don't think we should engage in discussions of false choices. We have the authority constitutionally to adopt policies, to shape what the President does, and that is the essence of this resolution.

Just today, the New York Times' Walter Dellinger and Christopher Schroeder wrote an op-ed piece which bears on this point. They say the Supreme Court has long recognized Congress's authority to set limits on the President's military power, as in 1799, when it accepted Congress's power to authorize the seizure of ships going to but not coming from French ports. Talk about micromanagement; that is micromanagement.

That is not what our Iraq resolution does. We are laying out policy objectives, a changed mission, which I think will enhance the ability of military forces in the United States to do their job and to protect our country.

The Dellinger piece goes on to say, ``More important, the legal advisers of presidents have themselves repeatedly recognized this congressional power. When former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was President Reagan's chief legal adviser in 1970, he flatly rejected the all-or-nothing claim.'' In Rehnquist's words, ``It is both utterly illogical and unsupported by precedent to think Congress may not delegate a lesser amount of authority to conduct military operations.''

That is essentially what we are talking about today. We are trying to redefine the mission so that it is consistent with the highest purposes of American national strategy. This mission would, first, recognize we have to protect our forces, giving the Commander in Chief broad discretion in protecting those forces; second, that we have an ongoing obligation to help train Iraqi security forces, which is absolutely critical; and, third, that we have the ongoing obligation to go after the terrorists wherever they may be. We did this in Somalia a few weeks ago when we had information of al-Qaida operatives. We had much cooperation on the ground and we went in there. That is the same option we must pursue in Iraq and every place else. These are the three missions that are most consistent and most important to our national strategy.

Also, this resolution begins a phased redeployment; not a rigid, inflexible timetable, but starting a date where we begin to pull out combat forces, leaving, of course, forces to carry on this mission of training Iraqi security forces, going after the terrorists, and protecting our own forces. Our goal, and it is strictly a goal, is that these combat brigades should be out of the country, we hope, by March of 2008.

This is a policy that I think will work, a policy that will be supported by the American people, and a policy that will encourage, I think, the political solution that is necessary. As everyone has noted, the answer to Iraq is not going to be achieved by military means. It will be achieved by political means. General Petraeus has said that. These are his words: ``There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq.''

We have to have, and this resolution calls for, the application of diplomatic power, support for the creation of functioning institutions in Iraq that can provide both the kind of political progress and economic progress these people demand, tangible signs that their Government will function. That is what we are encouraging and directing in this policy.

This policy makes sense and it is well within not only the obligation of this

Congress but the constitutional power of this Congress.

Mr. President, I request an additional 1 minute to be yielded from the time of the leader.

Mr. President, what the President is suggesting to us, his policy, is more of the same for a much longer period of time. As we all know, recently General Odierno suggested this surge is probably going to last not until the end of this year but into next year, and probably into the following year. That is putting a huge strain on our troops.

I think also we have to recognize our focus in Iraq, our preoccupation with Iraq, is inhibiting our strategic flexibility across the globe. It has enhanced the relative power of Iran, ironically, and it has caused us, belatedly, to begin serious negotiations with North Korea, which might be a profitable and progressive thing to do, but the focus on Iraq is serious.

Let me tell you, one of the most interesting comments that I have heard is when I asked Admiral McConnell, the head of our intelligence establishment, where is the most likely threat coming from, engaging in an attack on the United States, Pakistan or Iraq? He answered quite quickly: Pakistan.

We have to change our policy. This resolution will do that, and I urge its support.

I thank the Chair.

I yield for the purpose of a question, yes.

I will yield for a question.

Apparently, approximately 10 minutes or until Senator Schumer arrives.

Mr. President, we are engaged in a debate that will be critical to the future of this country. We have now for many years been engaged in Iraq. We have seen substantial casualties of our military men and women, not only those who have given the ultimate sacrifice but those who have been seriously wounded. We have seen our position in the world, particularly in that region, seriously eroded. We have a situation where, unwittingly perhaps but actually, Iran has become a more powerful agent in that area of the world because of the policy of this administration. I think we have the opportunity at this juncture to change this flawed strategy; also, to improve the operational skill of this administration because not only was the strategy flawed, but the implementation was absolutely horrid.

The Iraq Study Group made many useful suggestions, and key to those suggestions was to begin a phased redeployment of our forces. This was similar to language Senator Levin and I proposed last June, which talked about a phased redeployment of our combat forces, leaving residual missions for other forces, and also talked about an ambitious diplomatic effort to try to adjust politically the various forces and the various tensions in the country of Iraq and in the region. It was interesting to note that many months after the Levin-Reed proposal, the administration finally participated in a regional conference last week involving both Iran and Syria and the other neighboring countries. That is a step forward--a timid step but, indeed, a step forward.

The President, however--after the Iraq Study Group recommendations and after our debates last year--in January, when he was able to present and willing to present his new strategy, he made another mistake in several respects. First, the surging or escalating of forces is, I think at best, a temporary stopgap. The real solution to the dilemmas and the details that engulf Iraq are political in nature. That has been vouched for by every military commander and most commentators.

Rather than embracing the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, he distanced himself from them. Rather than talking about a phased redeployment, he talked about an indefinite escalation. In doing so, he jeopardized one of the fundamental foundations of any national policy, and that is public support. I believe the American people were listening closely, waiting for a sign that the President finally got it and that he was going to begin to conduct an orderly phased withdrawal and concentrate on the other critical missions of training Iraqi forces and going after terrorists who are much more important to our long-term security. They did not hear that in his speech. It is no surprise to me that their continuing lack of confidence in the administration has been translated into a lack of confidence in our prospects in Iraq.

I think the American people are looking for a policy they can support, one they can sustain, and one we can sustain. In my view, that policy is laid out very explicitly in the proposal that we are debating today authored by Senator Harry Reid. It focuses on defining critical missions so that our soldiers know precisely why they are in that country and that we can give them all the resources necessary for those missions to go after terrorists who have infiltrated the country.

The existence of terrorists before the invasion was one of highly speculative debate, and it turned out there was more speculation than fact. But the reality is terrorists have infiltrated Iraq in the intervening several years, and we have to go after them just as we did in Somalia, just as we are doing in Afghanistan, and just as we hope the Pakistanis are doing in Pakistan. After all, that is where bin Laden and Zawahiri are residing, reorganizing, and contemplating attempts to attack us again.

That effort of preemption of terrorists has to go on, and we have to maintain a presence in Iraq to do that. We also have to train the Iraqi security forces because, frankly, they are ultimately the decisive point in terms of security for Iraq. It is not American soldiers. We don't have the cultural affinity, as best we try; we don't have the vested interests. We are trying to help, but it is not our country, it is their country, and to prevail, they must carry the burden of war. We have to help them, we understand that. We have to continue to train them. Of course, we have to protect our forces.

There was some discussion today about how these missions are going to cause our soldiers, as they go through Iraq, to say: Well, I can't go after that fellow because he might be a sectarian militiaman and not a terrorist.

If those forces pose a threat to American troops in the field, they are fair game. That is what this resolution says. But it is made, these missions are, in the context of a policy of redeployment, of getting our combat forces out of Iraq. We hope we can do that within a year, but much depends upon what happens in other arenas: political mentoring and economic support. Frankly, this administration has done a dreadful job of that.

I have been to Iraq a number of times, as my colleagues have. You arrive there and they proudly announce they are going to have provisional reconstruction teams all over the country. Suddenly you discover months later that their goal of 20 was really 10, and now they have just about 10 but not fully staffed and not fully functional.

They are still trying to get it right. Again, any military officer will tell you that military forces in a counterinsurgency buys time. The decisive action is by political and economic progress, to give the citizens, the people of Iraq, tangible proof that their future lies with a legitimate government and not those who seek to undermine.

Yet, repeatedly, when you strip away the President's proposal, it is just more troops, without the real enablers, the real decisive factors of economic, political, reconstruction and reconciliation.

So, again, I think this is exactly the right course to pursue. It is a course that we must pursue. I have a great deal more to say about this issue. I notice my colleague from New York has arrived. Under the arrangement worked out with Senator Levin, I will yield the floor so he may speak in the order established. There is much more to be said, and I hope I have the opportunity to do so.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today the Senate will vote on a matter of utmost importance--enacting the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations. Since their publication 2\1/2\ years ago, roughly half of the recommendations have been left unaddressed, while many that have been adopted into law have not been effectively implemented. S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act, is a critical step to ensuring our Nation's safety.

This bill includes an important new interoperability grant program. Tragedies such as September 11, the Station Fire in my home State of Rhode Island, and Hurricane Katrina have demonstrated the need for interoperable communications equipment among first responders. More communities require access to funding to create interoperable communications networks, and I have long supported increasing accessibility for interoperability grants to local and state governments.

I am also pleased that this bill includes a transit security program that I helped author as a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The committee has been well aware of the need for this legislation since the tragic events of 9/11, spending significant time and effort to improve our Nation's transit security system. The Senate has passed transit security legislation in the last two Congresses, only to have them each stall prior to enactment. While our Nation acted quickly after 9/11 to secure airports and airplanes against terrorists, major vulnerabilities remain in surface transportation. As the 9/11 Commission concluded, ``opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime and surface transportation'' as in commercial aviation. The time to act is now.

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 32 million times each weekday 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 one cent is invested in the security of each transit passenger, the need for an authorized transit security program is clear.

In addition, the bill provides important protections for Transportation Security Officers at the Transportation Security Administration that have been long absent, including whistleblower protections, the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, and certain collective bargaining rights.

Lastly, while Providence is now 1 of 39 urban areas eligible for the Urban Area Security Initiative grants, something that I have long sought, believing the city faces risks from terrorism, I was disappointed that Senator Leahy's amendment to restore the minimum allocation to 0.75 percent for States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program failed. With this funding, Rhode Island has been able to make critical improvements, but adequate funding is still needed, and it is my hope that the highest minimum funding level will prevail in conference with the House of Representatives.

Implementing the final recommendations of the 9/11 Commission builds and improves on the work that has been done since the attacks of September 11, and I am pleased to support this bill.

Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge that today, March 6th, 2007, we celebrate the 17th annual National Sportsmanship Day. Created by the Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island in 1991, this initiative seeks to promote and develop the highest ideals of sportsmanship and fair play among not only America's youth but also the international community. Over its 17 years, more than 13,500 schools and 80 million individuals across all 50 States and many countries around the world have participated in National Sportsmanship Day activities. On this day, in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and colleges, students, teachers, coaches, and parents will discuss issues regarding sportsmanship and fair play.

This year, National Sportsmanship Day will focus on the themes ``Don't Punch Back, Play Harder'' and ``Defeat Gamesmanship.'' These themes will prompt participants to explore the practical values of ``competitive self-restraint'' and playing within the intended spirit of the rules. It is important for both our society and our culture that we instill these values in our youth. Additionally, the celebration will include the 14th annual USA Today National Sportsmanship Day Essay Contest.

I am pleased to say that Rhode Island is home to the Institute for International Sport and National Sportsmanship Day. For 17 years, the institute and this initiative have enhanced the nature and health of competition among our Nation's youth. The efforts of Senator Claiborne Pell and his able staff member Barry Sklar, Senator John Chafee, founder Dan Doyle, and many others have contributed to the success of this endeavor. I know that this year's National Sportsmanship Day celebration will continue to promote fair play and in so doing ensure a sound foundation of sportsmanship for today and for the future.