Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I had difficulty hearing the Senator. On the DeMint amendment, did I hear there was no time limit?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up amendment No. 2826 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I appreciate the great work the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, as well as the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, have done in crafting a bill with very tough parameters and to do so on a whole host of issues that are critical to the country's future. I look forward to being supportive of the bill overall.

I hope from our conversation with the committee that, in fact, two amendments I will be offering, or versions thereof, will be accepted by the committee.

Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer along with my colleague Senator Lautenberg, is about flight delays that we have been experiencing throughout the country. In my home State of New Jersey, Newark Liberty International Airport is one of the most delayed airports in the country. About half its flights were delayed this summer. These delays are unacceptable. Delays often mean a vacation cut short, a missed business meeting, or less time with loved ones.

There are environmental consequences, as very often delays take place on the runway with the idling of engines and the emissions therefor. They are a demoralizing experience, an experience punctuated by long waits, little communication, and often no recourse.

When I speak with the FAA and the airline industry about how to solve the problem, I hear two things. First, they say we need to upgrade air traffic control equipment, and I am wholeheartedly supportive of that effort, and I believe this bill sets us on the path for an eventual technological upgrade of the entire air traffic system.

Second, I hear the FAA's airspace redesign in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia region will also ease delays. I have a difficult time, having viewed what they came out with, to believe that, in fact, is going to be largely accomplished by the very fact that we are looking, at best, at seconds, eventually reducing delays by less than 20 percent. It seems to me by fanning out arrivals and departures, there might be a slight decline in delays, but this slight reduction in delays probably will not even be noticeable. Some have calculated this benefit to be as low as 25 seconds saved per flight.

I have been advocating with the FAA that they look at a variety of other issues, as well as deal with flight delays in the New York-New Jersey region. I wrote a letter asking the FAA to examine comprehensive, short-term solutions, such as whether temporary limits on operations should be placed on all of the regions' airports. I also asked them to examine whether priorities should be given to larger planes, particularly during periods of extreme congestion. Finally, at the very least, the FAA should have a meeting with all the regions' airports and discuss the possibility of voluntary flight reductions.

It is interesting to me that the letter I sent to the Administrator today--the Administrator came out and said to the industry: You better seriously considering getting your schedules together and figuring out a reduction in the amounts of scheduled flights you have because if you don't do so, you may end up with a Federal response to that extent.

So I think the Administrator, rightfully so, is trying to get the industry to do that what it needs to do I believe both for the industry and the flying public. These short-term solutions I propose will not require years to implement or billions of dollars in new funds. Instead, they require sensible planning on how to allocate the scarce resource of a seat on an airplane.

This has been done in other parts of the country. We have seen in the past FAA successfully address air delays by holding scheduled reduction meetings with airlines or even capping the number of flights, as they do at Reagan National and LaGuardia.

This amendment would largely have the GAO, an independent body, make sure that we have a study within a very short time, 120 days, to tell us how the tools that the FAA has used in other places in the country can be available to conquer flight delays in the short term and not simply wait for long-term, expensive solutions that only address a fraction of the problem. I do believe an independent study would be incredibly helpful.

In addition to airspace redesign, we look at the other critical issues of delay that have an economic consequence and an environmental consequence and a quality-of-life consequence as well.

I look forward to the committee adopting a version of this amendment.

Amendment No. 2834

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and ask that amendment No. 2834 be called up.

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

Mr. President, I have in my hand the Federal Register for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Basically, what it has done is said that under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, they are going to have private property owners throughout the country have to devise a series of documents. Instead of HUD having a uniform document, all of these documents will be crafted by the individual private sector entities across the country.

What that is going to do is shift an enormous financial burden on private property owners across the country and, equally as important in my mind, in pursuit of title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, it is going to lead to huge litigation across the country because we can have a variety of documents all for the same purposes being drafted in dozens, literally hundreds of different ways. That, in my mind, does not make common sense as it relates to the shifting of the burden on private property owners across the country, and it certainly does not make common sense in terms of having a uniform documentation that can ensure that at the end of the day, we do not see the courts flooded with different interpretations of those documents.

We simply put a very modest amount, but from all the parties who are engaged with this we have determined $380,000 will ultimately ensure we do not shift this huge burden on all the private property owners across the landscape of the country and, at the same time, have uniform documents that won't lead us to a flood of lawsuits and preserve the very essence of what the title 6 Executive Order the Bush administration is pursuing under title 6 can be accomplished. I think that makes eminent sense.

I look forward to the committee's acceptance of the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support, strong support, of the higher education reconciliation conference report before us. The bill represents a remarkable achievement this body, and this Congress, should be proud of. The billions of grant aid in this bill will make a tremendous difference for students across the Nation, students who are struggling to stay afloat because of the cost of college, students who are saving every last penny in the hopes they can achieve their dreams of college.

The passage of this bill will make a change in the tide in Congress. It proves to students that when we say we will work to make college more affordable, we mean it. This bill shows them that when we say we understand the obstacles they face to finance a college education, we are not throwing words around.

This bill will confirm that when we say student loans should work for students, we mean it. This Democratically led Congress laid out strong principles for how we should improve access to a college education. With this piece of landmark legislation, we are putting those principles into action. This bill is no small feat. Not since the passage of the GI bill has a piece of education legislation made this big of an investment in students' aid.

Now, this historic moment could not have been possible without the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who has once again stood up for the Nation's students by engineering and moving this bill forward. I also wish to thank Senator Enzi as the Republican leader on the committee who worked so quickly to finalize this important bill.

The bill could not come at a more critical time. Nationwide, the lowest income students at 4-year colleges face roughly $5,800 in unmet need after a standard financial aid package, after their loans, and after the amount their families contribute. To put it simply, for the neediest students all across the country, current aid has not kept up.

Students of my home State of New Jersey are no stranger to the skyrocketing cost of a college education. In fact, within the past 5 school years, the cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, room and board at 4-year public colleges in New Jersey has increased by almost 50 percent.

Unfortunately, family household incomes have not kept up with these rising costs. Even after financial aid is taken into account, nearly 40 percent of median family income in New Jersey is needed to pay for 1 year of college at 4-year public colleges. It is simply unbearable for our students. The result is some of our Nation's brightest students are locked out of a college education simply because they cannot afford it.

I am pleased this legislation will reverse that troubling trend for all our students and families across the country by adding billions into new grant aid. Next year alone, New Jersey students will see more than $40 million in new grant aid. Over the next 5 years, students in my State will have access to more than 400 million Federal grant dollars because of this bill. Grant dollars equal access for many of today's college students.

The bill reduces subsidies to student lenders and gives it back to our students. It is about time. For far too long, students struggling to afford college have seen their grants shrink, their loan rates go up and their debt explode after graduation. More than 60 percent of New Jersey students graduate with loan debt that averages $16,000. That is not a manageable amount of debt for a 21-year-old college graduate. It is an unfair burden.

That is why I am proud of the bill, because it will help lessen the burden on our students. It will put money directly where it is most needed, into Pell grants and other critical financial assistance that benefits our Nation's students. From here on, millions of young people across the Nation will have the opportunity to see their dream of a college degree come true.

They will have access to the key that will unlock their own economic empowerment, build a successful career, and succeed in a global economy. Today we have an opportunity to move critical legislation forward to be signed into law, so the doors to college will be open for all students. In the global economy we live in today, we clearly cannot afford as a nation to have our students priced out of a college education.

As someone who grew up poor, the son of immigrants, the first in my family to go to college, I know the power of the programs we are ready soon to vote on. I would never have attended St. Peters College, I would have never gone to Rutgers Law School without the power of key Federal grant programs such as Pell and Perkins, I certainly would not be standing with you today on the floor of the Senate had it not been for Federal financial aid.

I wish to ensure that is a birthright for all our students across the Nation, regardless of the happenstance of where they were born in life.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to one of the amendments pending before the Senate on Cuba democracy. But before I speak to that specific amendment, I wish to start off by thanking Chairman Leahy for all of his hard work on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. His leadership on crucial issues around the world is critical. I also appreciate his support for human rights around the world--Latin America and other places--as well as his willingness to work with me and my staff. So we appreciate his leadership on what I believe is overall an exceptional bill that has been brought to the Senate for its consideration.

Amendment No. 2694

I didn't know my colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, was going to come to the floor earlier. I would have joined him at the time. But I certainly wish to join him in promoting this amendment and Cuban democracy. This amendment is simple and for a simple but powerful purpose: to support democracy inside of Cuba. I believe that no matter where we as Members of the Senate stand on the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba--and I recognize there are diverging views--every Member of this body, however, I suspect, supports achieving democracy in Cuba and therefore should support this particular amendment.

Right now, we are at a critical time for democracy in Cuba. Some would ask: Why now? Why should we increase the funding for Cuban democracy right now in this legislation?

I would answer: Right now, we face a moment of hope for the Cuban people. Right now, we face a moment of hope for the Cuban people who have suffered under the only dictatorship in the entire hemisphere--a dictatorship of 48 years. Dictatorships, whether they be from the left or the right, are nonetheless dictatorships. They are an oppression of people, and we should be against such oppression.

Sometimes I hear from some the romanticism of who Fidel Castro is.

They forget that he is, above all, a dictator and that he oppresses his people on a daily basis. And even at the height of what was the former Soviet Union giving billions of dollars in assistance to the Castro regime, what did he do? He still rationed, Cuban families having to wait in long lines, as they do today, because of a regime that seeks to put its money in security forces, to oppress its people, instead of feeding its own people.

We should be against such repression. Right now we are faced with a moment of hope for the Cuban people with Castro ailing. Right now we face a potential tipping point for the Cuban opposition leaders and dissidents who risk their lives and well-being and their security and their freedom every day to speak out for democracy.

Right now we have to seize this moment of hope and increase our support for democracy inside of Cuba. Now, as we look at the history of democratic movements around the world, we have learned it is at such moments that internal democratic movements need external support.

Look at similar moments in Eastern Europe. Look at Poland's Solidarity movement; look at the former Czechoslovakia's Charter 77 movement in 1989. In each case, these internal moments were also supported from the outside. We must remember our responsibility when we hear those who formerly languished under Communist rule, when we hear people such as the famous Polish human rights activist and former President of Poland Lech Walesa say:

The United States led the free world defending values of

democracy and humanism. Your determination and your

civilization bloomed with the hope of Poles.

That is why it is critical that we increase our funds to support democracy in Cuba right now. A few weeks ago I participated in a video conference at the State Department with Cuban human rights activists, political dissidents, independent journalists, who took great risk to travel to the U.S. Interest Section in Havana from different parts of Cuba to speak to a group of Members of Congress, of which I was one.

We heard one clear message: that they are facing increased pressure. Think about it. Already under a totalitarian dictatorship, even under that oppression they are facing increased pressure from the regime, and U.S. funds are critical to their ability to continue speaking out against repression.

I would add that dissidents and opposition leaders were united. There was well over a dozen of them in this video conference at the U.S. Interest Section, and they were united on this point, even though they are sometimes divided on other issues. On this point of receiving assistance in order to nurture the opportunity for civil society and the opportunity for change to take place, they were united.

In fact, I received a letter from these same leaders which said their needs were, among others:

Medicine to keep a political prisoner or dissident from

dying to food, water filters, medical equipment, clothing,

shoes, coats, toys for the children of political prisoners

who suffer doubly the loss of a loved one who is in prison

and social repression on the streets and in schools,

essential vitamins, office supplies and the tools of

democracy (computers, printers, phones, fax machines).

Because in a closed society in which only the dictatorship owns the airwaves, whether it be that of radio, or that of television, or the state newspaper, when you cannot express your God-given right as an individual to have a different view and to speak out, and you have no form of expressing that view to those of your fellow countrymen, to have them seek to move in a different direction, what we do by providing computers and printers and phones and fax machines is the very essence of what we take for granted here at home but for them are the very seeds, the tools they need to promote democracy.

This letter was signed by a diverse group of Cuban dissidents, including Julio Cecilia Delgado Gonzalez, Juan Gonzalez Febles, Laura Pollan Toledo, Gidal Delgado Sablon, Candido J. Hidalgo-Gato, Vladimiro Roca Antunez, Guillermo Farinas Hernandez, Hector Palacio Ruiz, and Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz.

This is a very diverse group of human rights activists, political dissidents, independent journalists. They do not all agree, just as sometimes we do not all agree here, but they all seek to have democracy and human rights. They may have come at it in different

ways, but they all agree that they need help from the United States and from others throughout the world in order to achieve this.

This is why this amendment, increasing funding in the bill to $45.7 million, is important. This is the same level of funding the President requested, the same level of funding that was included in the House version of this bill that was passed by a strong bipartisan vote.

Let me be clear. We are asking for an increase in these funds. We are asking for an increase in these funds because this is exactly the moment to increase funds for Cuban democracy. We do provide an offset for these funds, so we are not increasing the overall total of the bill. The offset is exactly what was included in the House-passed version of this bill. It is from the largest pot of money in the entire bill, for general expenses, for general administration.

I wish also to remind my friends that these programs I am talking about for democracy inside of Cuba--health, helping the human rights activists, political dissidents, journalists and activists--are carried out by organizations well known to my Senate colleagues: the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, Pan American Development Foundation.

Our Cuba Democracy Program also works with well-known international organizations such as France's Reporters Without Borders, the Netherlands' Pax Christi, and the Czechs' People in Need Foundation.

I think we would all support the type of work the Cuba Democracy programs carry out. U.S. funds support helping victims of repression. U.S. funds support advocating for human rights, including helping the wives of political prisoners advocate for their release from prison and defending their rights in jail.

U.S. funds support pro-democracy activists, grantees of training Cuban dissidents on information technology, leadership, civil society activities, facilitating coordination among activists, and making small institutional developmental grants to strengthen the organizational capacity of democracy groups.

U.S. funds give Cubans a voice and help disseminate activists' writing and provide Internet coverage by independent Cuban journalists. The work they do is powerful and meaningful. Between 2004 and 2005, there was a 54 percent increase in civil resistance actions within Cuba, 89 percent of which occurred outside of Havana in Cuba's provinces.

A 2005 study by the Cuban Democratic Directorate found that actions of civil resistance have increased from 444 in the year 2000 to 3,322 in the year 2005. It is a positive trend of those who seek to create civil society and peaceful change inside of their country, toward that which we promote around the world, human rights, democracy. Ignoring this opportunity would only undermine this historic undertaking.

In conclusion, I believe this is a vote that should unite all of us wherever we stand on general U.S. policy toward Cuba. Let me remind my friends, this is not a vote on the embargo, this is not a vote on basic U.S. policies toward Cuba; we may have that discussion on some other day. By voting for this amendment, you are voting to support those in Cuba who continue to go out in the street every day, to ask for peaceful democratic change, who risk their lives, who risk their liberty. That is not an overdramatization of the reality of the challenge those who seek to create change in the country of Cuba face.

I represent many in New Jersey who have languished in Castro's jails for 10, 20, even 30 years. What was their crime? What was their crime that they had languished for 10, 20, or 30 years in Castro's jails? Simply to suggest, simply to suggest, that there was a better way for the Cuban people simply to speak out for those freedoms we enjoy here in this country, simply to be able to have the opportunity to worship at the altar that we choose, simply to be able to elect those who represent us in our Government as we are privileged to serve here, simply to be able to come together and organize and demonstrate a different view than that which the Government might have at any given time, simply to speak your mind without the fear that the consequences of doing so will have you languishing 10, 20, or 30 years in Castro's gulags.

Anyone who doubts that is welcome to come to my home State of New Jersey, I am sure to the home State of my colleague from Florida, and others in the country who can visit with these human living examples of that oppression, and in many cases of the torture that they receive under the hand of this dictatorship.

By voting for this amendment, you are voting to support those in Cuba who are seeking and trying to create peaceful democratic change. By voting for this amendment you are voting to provide food and clothing to support political prisoners in Castro's jails who have been imprisoned for doing nothing more than reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other democratic documents.

I wrote, when I was in the House, what is still the law of the land, title II of the Helms-Burton legislation, which is the document of that law which talks about how the United States stands ready to assist a future government pledged to democracy and transition, and then a future democratic government. We put in, under President Clinton, the first plan that described the proactive nature, the first time we proactively prepared for the possibility of a transition in a country. That document was sent to the U.S. Interest Section and reproduced, was given to Cubans who came to the section. Those who had the audacity to have that simple document in their possession were often arrested and thrown into jail. The power of the thought, the liberating thought of the freedoms and the real attitude the United States had with the Cuban people as to where we wanted to help the people, not those who oppressed them, was so powerful that the regime could not afford for people to read it and would arrest them as they left the Interest Section.

By voting for this amendment, you give those who read that document or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other democratic documents the opportunity to be able to survive those jails. By voting for this amendment you are voting to do what the international community did in Poland, in Hungary, in Eastern Europe.

By voting for this amendment, you are voting to support democracy and human rights as we do in other programs in countries such as China, Burma, Cambodia, and many others. By voting for this amendment, you are making a simple statement--whether or not we disagree on how we achieve the policy goals--we support democracy, freedom, and human rights of the Cuban people. That is what this amendment does.

I hope we will have, as the House did, a strong bipartisan vote to send a message to those who struggle every day inside Cuba to create freedom, to promote the rights of individuals, as we are able to enjoy here in this country, that 90 miles away from the shores of the United States there can be the same opportunity as people aspire to throughout the world.

This is the moment. This is the time. This is the opportunity. I hope the Senate will avail itself of it and vote for this amendment.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am happy to join with my distinguished colleague from Florida in offering this amendment. I appreciate what I understand I hope will be the acceptance of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the amendment by voice. I appreciate the fact that even those who have different views as to how we promote democracy in Cuba are willing to allow resources to have the ability to nurture human rights activists, political dissidents, independent journalists, those who struggle inside Cuba every day to promote civil society and peaceful change in their country which has languished for 48 years under a dictatorship--are willing to allow that to move forward.

This is about promoting the opportunities of nurturing those people who risk their life and liberty every day to create change in their country, and in doing so the United States has always been a beacon of light of democracy throughout the world and a strong advocate for human rights. The adoption of the amendment would continue in that fine tradition.

I urge our colleagues, when the distinguished Senator from Florida seeks to do so, with hopefully the distinguished acquiescence of the chairman of the committee and ranking Republican, to have the amendment adopted and take advantage of this most propitious and historic moment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Amendments Nos. 2695, 2696, and 2697 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I agree and I support this legislation as well. It will provide critical money to make sure our veterans are given the health care they deserve.

Mr. President, fighting wars involves not just the men and women on the ground overseas but also dedicated workers here at home. It depends on the training and research done at military bases like Fort Monmouth. Fort Monmouth provides intelligence and reconnaissance support for our Armed Forces, making them more effective fighters and protecting their lives.

The BRAC Commission knew about that important work and wanted to make sure our troops in the field would not be harmed by closing the base. They included a requirement that the Secretary of Defense issue a report to Congress proving that ``movement of organizations, functions, or activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground will be accomplished without disruption of their support to the Global War on Terrorism.''

When we raised concerns about this to the Army, it halted the transfer and our understanding was that the Army would wait until the report required by BRAC was completed. But now the Army has reversed course and plans to start transferring people soon.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin, for bringing us together today to talk about the ongoing genocide in Darfur and, more specifically, the upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution and for his continuing efforts in the Senate.

I am also honored and pleased to be with Senator Feingold, who has been such an incredibly powerful voice on this issue, both in his position as the chairman of the African Subcommittee on Foreign Relations and in his principle position itself. I am honored to join with them in this effort.

Today, as we speak on the Senate floor, the U.N. Security Council is negotiating a new Darfur resolution. So today we are on the Senate floor to send a loud and clear message to the United Nations. The people of Darfur need a strong and meaningful resolution that puts into action the end of the genocide and ensures that a United Nations- African Union troop force gets into Darfur.

Today, we are here to add our voices to those who call for a U.N. resolution with strong authority, for a robust hybrid United Nations- African Union force, and a full mandate and speedy deployment. It has long been clear that the overstretched and underfunded African Union troops cannot end the genocide. If this new force is not allowed in, the carnage and the destruction we have witnessed now for over 4 years will continue.

We have known that a U.N. force is the key to ending the violence in Darfur, and we have tried in the past to put it into place. Over a year ago, when I first came to the Senate, I got the Senate to pass an amendment for $60 million to fund the U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. I was joined by my colleagues in that effort.

Almost 1 year ago, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1706, which called for 22,500 U.N. troops and police officers to support the African Union force in Sudan. Yet we still see no hybrid force on the ground. We still hear of attacks on humanitarian workers, we still learn of atrocities against civilians.

The lives of these millions of displaced persons now hang in a delicate balance between life and death. If we were in the refugee camps being attacked, who among us would be content with the counsels of: patience, patience, and delay. Who?

Let's be frank; it has been the Government of Sudan that has kept this force from entering. Now they recently have agreed to allow a force in. Yet we have heard these words before. Words mean little without real action. That is why I am pleased this new U.N. Security Council will likely include the transfer of authority to a hybrid United Nations-African Union mission that will allow the use of force to ensure the security and movement of the mission's personnel and humanitarian workers.

But to be meaningful, this force must be deployed, and it must be deployed as quickly as humanly possible. I am disappointed, however, that after rounds of negotiations, the resolution was ultimately watered down. From what I understand, there will be no reference to sanctions, there will be no right to seize and dispose of illegal arms, there will be no reference to the jingaweit, the brutal pro-Khartoum militia force responsible for many of the atrocities.

While I understand the need to negotiate a resolution that will pass, ultimately, we cannot let this manipulation continue. We cannot let Sudan's Ambassador have veto power over these lives. We cannot let nations with permanent seats and veto power on the Council continue to act irresponsibly. That is where I wish to close.

China says they generally approve, generally approve of the new resolution. They have been working, however, behind the scenes to weaken it. They reportedly helped remove references to sanctions. They reportedly objected to its ``controversial tone'' about genocide. Simply put, they continue to act in their own economic interest. We have seen them take some positive steps in the past, and it is positive that they are reportedly not going to block this resolution and that they may even support it.

But such a small step when China is under public international pressure is simply not enough. That is why I am pleased my resolution on China and Darfur passed the Senate last night. This resolution, which my colleagues on the floor supported, calls on China to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop the genocide and violence in Darfur.

China has longstanding economic and military ties with Sudan, and they must use their economic leverage to do more than fill their wallet. As China prepares to host the 2008 Olympic Summer Games, we must hold the Chinese Government accountable to act consistently with the Olympic standard of preserving human dignity around the world, including in Darfur.

Once again, the international community finds itself with another opportunity to bring about real change in Darfur. The resolution being passed by the U.N. Security Council will only be meaningful if measures with teeth are included.

As John Prendergast, senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, said recently in testimony before Congress:

Barking without biting is the diplomatic equivalent of

giving comfort to the enemy.

Time has run out for negotiations. Time has run out for the Khartoum Government to balk. Time has run out for watered down U.N. Security Council resolutions. We must get that hybrid force on the ground. We must end the genocide.

If ``never again'' is to have real meaning, if those words we use are to have real meaning, it has to have strong action to stop the genocide, strong action that history will judge as among the righteous, anything less will lend to our collective condemnation, and to the ever-nagging conscience that will not rest as others die.

That is the choice before the U.N. Security Council. I am glad those of us here are making our voices felt so, hopefully, the Council will act and we can have meaningful action to ``never again.''

Mr. President, I would say between 15 and 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, not only for making the time available but, more importantly, for his leadership on this critical issue of insuring the Nation's children. There is no stronger voice in the Senate on this issue. I am incredibly proud to have worked with Senator Baucus, someone who is keenly interested in this program. I appreciate what he has done in bringing a solid bill to the floor.

I rise today on behalf of our Nation's children and working families. I am reminded every day when I come to the Senate that it is my privilege--privilege--to represent these individuals in the Senate, and with every vote I cast in this great Chamber, I try to always ensure I am protecting and serving our hard-working families.

This week, we are considering a bill to reauthorize our children's health program--a program that affects millions of families across the country. This week, every vote--every vote--we cast will have a direct impact on the health and well-being of our Nation's children and their families.

I cannot overstate how important and how successful this program has been. It currently provides health care to 6.6 million children. Sometimes I think it is important to remember exactly what it means to provide health care for children. It is the immunization shot before school begins. It is a well-child doctor visit that catches early signs of cancer. It is the emergency care coverage after a car accident. It is the new eyeglass prescription to finally see the blackboard. It is an x ray for a broken ankle and a prescription medication for a strep throat. It is about ensuring the well-being of that child so they can fulfill their God-given potential.

Proper coverage can be the difference between life and death, between health and sickness, and between compassion and heartlessness.

In the next few days, we have choices to make, and I hope each of my colleagues ask themselves one question before they cast their vote: Is this good for our Nation's children? Because that should be the only question and the only goal.

I am proud of my home State of New Jersey for always keeping this goal in its mind. Our program, New Jersey FamilyCare, currently covers over 126,000 children and 80,000 parents. These are working families who don't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford

private coverage, and they don't get health care at their job. They work at some of the toughest jobs our State has to offer. They get up every day, 5 days a week--sometimes more--to try to make ends meet for their families, but they don't have health insurance. These are families who, without the children's health program, would yet be another American family cast into the ocean of the uninsured. This program saves them from that fate.

Let me take a moment to humanize what we are talking about, because we talk about these programs in the abstract. They are about lives; they are about people. Elizabeth Geronikos relied on the children's health program for her necessary allergy and asthma medication when her father suddenly lost his job. Jonathan Hale, who discovered a cyst in his brain, was able to get medical attention that his family would not otherwise have been able to afford because of the children's health insurance program. The Cannon family no longer has to worry about their son Jason, who now has a constant supply of asthma medication and has suffered no serious asthma attacks since being on the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is truly a life-changing, if not a lifesaving, program.

But there are also stories of children who were not so lucky. Devante Johnson, who depended on Medicaid for his cancer treatment, died, not for failed chemotherapy, but because his paperwork was never processed. He was 14 years old. Deamonte Driver died because he did not receive treatment for an abscessed tooth--something that, if treated early, would clearly not have been fatal. He was 12 years old. These stories are heartbreaking not only because a child's life was lost but also because it could have been prevented.

We must ensure that no more children go without treatment they need and that no more lives are lost. Our job as Senators is to protect these children. What greater honor and responsibility do we have but protecting our children? As a father, I can't imagine the anguish I would feel if I could not provide health care for my son and daughter. Thus, as a Senator, I feel it is our obligation to provide health care for every single child. I strongly believe we have a responsibility to ensure that no child in America goes to bed at night without proper health care and treatment, and that is why this reauthorization is so crucial.

Under this bill, over the next 5 years we would be able to continue covering the 6.6 million children currently enrolled, and we would be able to reach out and cover an additional 3.2 million children. So the answer to the question, Is this good for the Nation's children, is clearly yes, especially for those 3.2 million children waiting to receive care. That answer is a resounding ``yes.'' There are even more whom we must work to cover.

I want to ask my colleagues who say they may not support this bill, Where are the values we talk about in this institution? Where are the family values voices that so often are heard in this Chamber? Now is not the time to be silent. Now is when families need you most. Now is the time to stand by your values and stand up to protect our future generation.

To these colleagues, I wish to take a moment to answer some questions about New Jersey's effort to reach out and enroll more children. Over the past few weeks, New Jersey has received a lot of attention for covering children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. In our regard, we think we are doing the right thing, and the statistics prove we are right. I can understand that some might think these families have enough money to afford private insurance, but for New Jersey families, that is simply not the case. New Jersey families face higher living costs, and they get less return on their Federal dollar, so we cannot set a policy that suggests that one size fits all.

I did some of the math which I want to share with my colleagues. At the top end, a working New Jersey family, their family budget, shows they have about $4,428 in income. Housing in New Jersey is incredibly expensive, about $1,500 a month. Food for that family is $547; transportation to get to work, or if they happen to have a car to pay for their commutes back and forth, with the high gas prices, $820; child care, if they are not in school, and health insurance. I looked up under the Bureau of Banking and Insurance what is the average health insurance coverage for a family a month--a month. The statistic on the Web site is $2,065. So that puts this family, if they have to be forced to purchase health insurance, in the negative $1,200 a month. That means they can't make ends meet. This doesn't take into account any unforeseen circumstance on the family budget. So it doesn't end up adding up. That is why this program is so important.

That is why, when New Jersey enrolls children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, they do it because without this coverage, we would have thousands more children more without health insurance. Purchasing a private plan, no matter what tax incentives you give--I hear some of our colleagues talk about giving a $5,000 maximum credit per family. Well, that is great. That buys us 2\1/2\ months of insurance. What do we do for the rest of the year for that family? Do we roll the dice on their health care? I don't think so--not when we as an institution have some of the best health care in the Nation.

I am grateful to the Finance Committee for recognizing what we already knew on a bipartisan basis: The one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Remember, our objective is to cover more children, not less. I can't believe I even need to mention what I am about to say, but in light of some of the comments I have heard over the past few weeks about the President saying: Well, let them go to the emergency room, I think it might be necessary to look at what happens to children without health insurance and how they suffer serious consequences.

Research has shown that uninsured children not only miss regular checkups and visits to the doctors for less serious conditions that ultimately become far more serious in their personal health and far more consequential and far more expensive, but they also receive less than lower quality care. In fact, uninsured children admitted to a hospital due to injuries were twice--twice--as likely to die while in the hospital as their insured counterparts, and that is simply unacceptable.

There is no morality if upon hearing this, every Member of this Chamber does not do everything in his or her power to cover more children. It is, I believe, a moral obligation. I often hear about the value of life and I cherish it as well. Now is the time to honor the value of the lives of these children.

Another way New Jersey has been successful in covering more children is because we also cover low-income and working parents. In New Jersey, we have found a strong correlation between enrollment of parents and enrollment of children. After the State implemented its parent expansion in 2000, not only did it experience rapid enrollment of parents, but it also saw a significant increase in the enrollment of children, which is our goal. In 2002, the State stopped enrolling parents, and what happened? As parent enrollment began to fall, children's enrollment began to level off. Once the State began reenrolling parents in 2005, children's coverage began to rise again. There is clear evidence that by allowing those States that choose to do so to cover parents, you increase the number of children who have health coverage, achieving our ultimate goal of covering more children and, by the way, we end up covering more Americans.

To further prove this point, former Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag recently stated that:

Restricting eligibility to parents does have an effect on

take up among children, in part because when you pick up the

parent you are more likely to pick up the child.

Thus, if we stop covering parents under the Children's Health Insurance Program, as some in the Congress and the White House want to do, you end up covering fewer children.

In fact, Peter Orszag said:

For every three of four parents you lose, you lose 1 or 2

kids.

Based on this, in New Jersey, if we were forced to disenroll all of our parents, over 40,000 children would lose their coverage. This doesn't help us achieve our goal of covering more children.

So again, we have to ask: Is covering parents of eligible children good for our Nation's children? The answer is clearly yes.

As I said at the beginning of my statement, I fully support the legislation we are considering today. Senator

Baucus has done an excellent job. I appreciate the bipartisan vote of the committee. I am proud of the reauthorization bill because of what it prioritizes, but also because I know how hard it was to reach this compromise. This is a bipartisan bill that Members of both sides of the aisle support. I know it has taken long nights and serious conversation and many difficult decisions to reach where we are today. I appreciate again Senator Baucus's incredible efforts, the members of the committee, as well as Majority Leader Reid, for their efforts on behalf of the program.

That being said, I simply want to say that if I had my druthers, I would have sought to achieve a greater height. I understand that so would many of the Members who actually created the compromise. I would have liked to have seen, as I did as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, $50 billion provided. I worked hard to make sure we had that in the budget resolution. I know that is the funding that will be necessary to reach out to the 6 million eligible but uninsured children in America, and it is the funding these children deserve.

Another area of major concern is the lack of language to provide health care for legal immigrant children and pregnant women in the Children's Health Insurance Program. I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Legal Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, also known as ICHIA, which would have repealed the morally objectionable law that prohibits new legal immigrants from accessing Medicaid and CHIP until they have lived in the United States for 5 years. I think we should have the flexibility for States to make that decision.

I am proud that in my home State of New Jersey, they have taken it upon themselves to use 100 percent of State funds to cover over 8,000 legal immigrant pregnant women and children at a cost of over $22 million. The State has temporarily fixed the problem, but I had hoped Congress would do the same. How can you tell a 7-year-old child with an ear infection he has to wait 5 years to see the doctor? How can you tell a child who may have the incipiency of some incredibly terrible disease you have to wait 5 years to go see the doctor? It seems to me we can't bar these families from accessing our health care supply simply because they haven't lived here long enough. During the immigration debate, our colleagues emphasized the difference between those who are here legally and those who are not. So it is appalling to me that a legal immigrant child--one whose family waited their time to come to this country, came here legally, obeyed the law, are working, paying taxes--is still subject to the lash of those people who, even for a child who is here legally, seem to punish. It seems to me that is simply wrong.

Let me close by addressing the President's veto threat. He is basically opposed to this bill because he says it covers too many children and families. I don't know how more outrageous and unacceptable a statement can be. I find it embarrassing that some in Washington--those who have the best health care coverage in the world-- would propose to cut America's neediest families--neediest families who work hard every day, because if you are poor, you are on Medicaid. These are families who get up and work hard, don't have enough to pay insurance, don't have coverage through work, and can't afford it. Yet the President of the United States, who has the best coverage in the world, and the Vice President of the United States, whom we saw recently in the hospital--happy that everything went well for him--have no worries. They have no worries every night--and for them to say these children are less worthy than them. If the President had his way, over 110,000 New Jerseyans would lose their coverage, and tens of thousands more across the Nation would lose their coverage. I find that morally reprehensible.

I find it ironic that the President doesn't want to cover parents with this program, considering the fact that since 2001, it was his administration that granted 24 waivers for adult coverage in 15 States, including my home State of New Jersey. In fact, when a waiver was issued in 2003 to New Jersey, the administrator of CMS, the Federal agency that supervises the program, said:

New Jersey is setting an example of how Federal waivers can

help them cut into the numbers of citizens with no health

coverage.

Tom Scully, Administrator of CMS, the Federal agency overseeing this program, said we are setting an example.

In 2004, President Bush made a promise to insure all of the Nation's children, but his latest proposal would only serve to cut children and increase the number of uninsured. Rather than adding to the ranks of the uninsured, we should be working together to expand access to even more children and families. Mr. President, it is time to make good on your word.

It is time to make good on your promise. It is time to cover all children. At the end of the day, this bill is about low-income and working families getting much needed care. This is about our Nation's children having access to a doctor for preventive care and receiving treatments for more serious conditions. This is about the health and safety of current and future generations.

There is only one question left to be asked: Is this good for our Nation's children? The answer is yes.

Let me close with a great Republican I admire, Abraham Lincoln. He said:

A child is a person who is going to carry on what you have

started. He [and I add she] is going to sit where you are

sitting, and when you are gone, attend to those things which

you think are important. You may adopt all the policies you

please, but how they are carried out depends on him. He will

assume control of your cities, states, and nations. All your

books are going to be judged, praised, or condemned by him.

The fate of humanity is in his hands. So it might be well to

pay him some attention.

I ask my colleagues to now pay attention to our children and support this important bill. It is important our children. It is for our families. It is in pursuit of our values, and it is for the well-being of our country.

I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

(Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to, first, the Bunning amendment, which is the one I particularly wish to talk about because it is a direct attack on children in New Jersey. I did not think I would come to the Senate and see such a refined focus on the children of anyone's State. But that is what the Bunning amendment does.

I am sure I could draft amendments that would hone in on the interests of any given State, but I do not think that is where we want to go as a Congress, as a Senate. I do not think that is particularly good public policy. So right now I am fuming.

Let me start off by saying I thought this was one country. One country. There are a lot of things I have voted for in the Senate and in my 15 years in the Congress, in the other body before I came here, that clearly did not specifically benefit my State, from crop disaster, to ethanol, I cannot get an E-85 pump in New Jersey; a whole host of things for farmers and the list goes on and on.

I looked at it, I always looked at it as one country. Sometimes in the allocation of resources there are certain needs that get taken care of in one part of the country, where in another part there are different needs. Those amendments are an attack directly upon that notion that this is one country.

I also think it is very easy to talk about income but never talk about costs, as if living in one part of the country automatically means that those costs are the same in another part of the country. Well, they are not. We recognize that in a variety of laws in which we give differentials to a whole host of different elements, from Federal employees to differentials for the military to a whole host of people based upon where they are stationed, because we recognize that, in fact, there are different costs of living in this country.

So it is interesting to talk about income but not talk about costs. You know what I am for? Let's make sure anyone in the Senate--I am sure everybody here makes in excess of 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. Let's eliminate health care for all of those that you ultimately get by virtue of the taxpayers' dollars.

Do you deserve health care more than children who happen to fall into that category? These are the children of working families. They are not poor, as in not working, because if they were, they would get Medicaid. But they are the children of those individuals who are working, and work at some of the toughest jobs, and yet make an income that does not allow them to purchase health insurance and their job does not seem to offer health insurance.

There is a great universe of Americans whom we are trying to cover under the Children's Health Insurance Program. I agree. What is the goal? The goal is to cover children, children who do not have coverage otherwise. Well, this is exactly what we seek to do.

Now, you know, in New Jersey, we do cover 126,000 children. And, yes, we cover children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. That means there are 3,000 New Jersey children who happen to fall in this category who are in the direct aim of the Bunning amendment, 3,000 children who today get health care who would be knocked out by virtue of the Bunning amendment, and there may be one or two other States that focus on children as well.

My question is: Why are you targeting these children? What did they do to you? What did they do to you? You know, the difference is, maybe if I lived in Kentucky, I could afford to get health care based upon the incomes, but first of all, we have heard a lot of numbers bantered around here, some of which are clearly not true.

Three hundred fifty percent of the Federal poverty level is $60,095 for a family of three. So it is not $82,000, as some suggest, for starters. In fact, there is no child in this country, no child in this country covered up to that dollar amount--in the entire country. That is a scare tactic. It is shameful. We need to cover children up to 350 percent because New Jersey families face higher living costs.

They get less of their return on the Federal dollar, so again we cannot have a policy that doesn't take all of that into account. But let my lay it out for you. At the top of New Jersey's current eligibility level, a family might make somewhere around this $4,428.

Well, when you deduct housing costs in New Jersey, when you deduct food costs, when you deduct transportation to get to work, and I think a byproduct is that we want to, in our values, make sure we value the welfare of these children we are talking about and their health care, we also want to value work. One of the things these parents are doing is they are working. Now, they could not be working and be on welfare and ultimately be eligible for Medicaid. But we want to value work as well. They are working.

So they have to get to work. They have child care costs. Here is what the Department of Insurance in New Jersey says is the cost monthly-- monthly--for family care in New Jersey, for family health insurance: $2,065. Now, this does not have utility costs, this does not have clothing, this does not have any emergency expenses for the family. This is no buffer. No buffer. What is the consequence of that to this family if they were trying to have health insurance? They would be in the red each month by $1,200, which means that they simply will not have health insurance, they simply will not have health insurance, and these kids would not have health insurance.

Now, that is the goal of the program, to provide health insurance for children who are not so poor that they would get it under Medicaid, but, in fact, are in a set of circumstances where because their parents work, and not getting insurance at work, they find themselves in that category for which there is no coverage and no money to be covered by virtue of their family income.

So it simply does not do it. It simply does not do it. It is basic math. That is why New Jersey enrolls children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, because if you live in New Jersey with that income, without this coverage, children would not have health insurance. Purchasing a private plan--no matter the tax incentives, I have heard some of the tax incentives that are being offered. There is some suggestion of a $5,000 tax credit. Great. Well, that is 2\1/2\ months of health care coverage in New Jersey.

What do we do for the rest of the time? Do we roll the dice? Are we supposed to hope for the other 10 months they do not get sick, they do not get preventative care? That is what our public policy is all about? That is what our values are as a Senate, as a country? I do not think so.

Now, the fact of the matter is, I urge my colleagues to think about this, because in New Jersey, you need to have $43,060 to purchase the same goods in Kentucky for $32,669. That is about $11,000 more to do the same thing as if you are living in Kentucky.

Now, the realty is, that is why one-size-fits-all does not work. I have heard many times on the debates here: States know best, let's have flexibility.

Well, this is a perfect example of how that flexibility has given us the wherewithal to cover children. I must say, I wish to warn my colleagues that supporting the Bunning amendment is about dumping children off the Child Health Insurance Program. It is the beginning of a slippery slope. So now we begin to eradicate those who are at 350 percent, we take them off; so then somebody comes up with another amendment, let's do 300 percent, let's eliminate that; then let's bring someone else who brings in 275 percent, and then the list goes on and on.

Before you know it, instead of having a program that covers more children in our country, we have less children covered. Less children covered in our country. I believe that, in fact, what we want to do is quite different. That is why I respect what the Senate Finance Committee did on a bipartisan basis. They looked at all the issues, all the costs, they looked at the goal of achieving, insuring more children in our country, keeping those who are in the 6.6 million, adding another 3.2 to 3.4 million, trying to reach the goal of insuring all our kids and doing it within a fiscal context that would allow it to happen. That is what this is about. That is what this is supposed to be about.

So I hope my colleagues do not join on the slippery slope that begins to cut back and cut back and cut back, that takes children off health care coverage because it would set a precedent that I think none of us would want to do at the end of the day, not only on children's health but on other issues that may be critical to our States.

I think this is about a set of values in the Senate. What are our values? We hear so much about children are our future. Yet our values speak to, if we pass this amendment, cutting children off health care, even though clearly there is a far greater cost to living in a State such as New Jersey than there is to living in a State such as Kentucky.

Now, there are a lot of things that go on in the Senate on different issues that clearly there is an appeal because of the nature of the unique challenges that States face. Well, we face a unique challenge. We want to make sure our children who are already on--by the way, these are children who already have coverage, who will lose coverage as a result of the Bunning amendment.

I am simply baffled. I thought we were about family values here. I

thought we were about protecting children. I thought we were about increasing opportunity for children to ultimately be covered. I thought we were about enhancing the quality of life and protecting life. Obviously, it is the lives of children whom we are talking about, whom we put at risk by knocking off their coverage.

So I find it embarrassing that some in Washington, some in the very Senate who have about the best health care coverage in the world can come and offer amendments that they cannot live under, that they could not live under if, in fact, they had to.

What Member of the Senate does not make more than 350 percent of the Federal poverty level? Do you not deserve to have the Government subsidizing your health care? You should be out then. Let's have the amendment make that happen too before you take 3,000 kids off the Child Health Insurance Program. It is just incredible in my mind.

So I urge my colleagues, when the time comes, and I hope there will be a timeframe when that amendment is to be pursued because I will be vigorous in pursuing it on the floor, that we do not head down the slope of pitting one part of our Nation against another, pitting the realities of the difficulties of living in one part of our Nation versus the other, pitting children in one part of the Nation versus the other, pitting the very essence of preserving children and their health against some simple formula number that ultimately Members of this body could not live under themselves.

I think if it is good enough for us, it is good enough for these children. I would not want to see a vote that ultimately undermines the ability of thousands of children who presently get health care under this program to be eliminated. That would be a dark day in the Senate's history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the primary goals of the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process is to reduce costs. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of implementing BRAC balloon out of control. Back in 2005, Congress agreed to implement the recommendations of the BRAC Commission based on the understanding that it would cost the American taxpayers $21 billion, a substantial investment. But now, only two years later, we are looking at a price tag of $30 billion, which is a 43 percent increase.

If costs continue to rise at this rate, we will be looking at even more of a burden on the American taxpayer by the time the base closures and realignments are completed in 2011. In my home State of New Jersey, we are keenly aware of some of the wildly inaccurate cost estimates used in the BRAC process. The closing of New Jersey's army base at Fort Monmouth was originally expected to cost $780 million, now we are looking at a $1.5 billion price tag. Part of this inflated cost is due to the egregious miscalculations on how much it would cost to move the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, currently located in New Jersey, to West Point, NY. Although the BRAC Commission's original, one-time implementation cost estimate was $29 million, current estimates put the move at nearly $200 million. Many communities and families will be greatly impacted by the closing of Fort Monmouth and the relocation of the military prep school. Knowing that these decisions were based on miscalculations and misinformation does not sit well with our State, and it should not sit well with taxpayers across the country either. If American families are being forced to foot a bill they weren't expecting, there should be an escape hatch.

That is why I am introducing the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 2007 or the BRAC COP Act. This legislation will work to control the excessive cost overruns in BRAC and ensure that BRAC is maximizing our taxpayers' money. This bill, which I am introducing with Senator Lautenberg, is based on principles found in existing law concerning cost overruns in weapons programs, known as the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Let me take a few moments to discuss exactly how this legislation will work.

The BRAC COP Act will create a trigger mechanism to require a re- evaluation of any major base closure or realignment should the actual cost exceed BRAC's estimated cost by more than 25 percent. In order to monitor BRAC costs, this bill will require the Secretary of Defense to write biannual reports on the costs of implementing the pending base closure or realignment recommendations mandated by BRAC law. If the secretary determines that the actual cost of implementing a major base closure or realignment recommendation has exceeded the 25 percent threshold, the Defense Secretary will then notify the Chairman and Ranking Member the Congressional Defense Committees and devise a business plan to reduce the cost, without readjusting the baseline estimated cost, so that it does not exceed the 25 percent limit.

The Secretary will then make a recommendation to the President on whether to continue the base closure or realignment. The BRAC COP Act also supports transparency in this process, so if the Defense Secretary recommends that the President continue or modify the base closure or realignment, despite the excessive cost overruns, the Secretary must include an explanation of why it is necessary to continue with these expenditures. After reviewing the Secretary's recommendation, the President will make his own recommendation and submit it to Congress. Just like the congressional procedure for voting on BRAC law, Congress will then have the option to vote to disapprove the President's recommendation.

Let me be clear: this legislation will not overturn BRAC, nor is it intended to re-open the BRAC process. This bill simply asks that the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Congress take a second look when we face exhorbant cost overruns. The BRAC COP Act will only affect the largest base closures and realignments that are over budget, so we will not be analyzing every single one of the BRAC recommendations.

It is time that the Defense Department is held more accountable for its expenditures. This Congress and the American people do not want to continue providing blank checks so that the Pentagon can rework its accounting tables, regardless of the costs. Congress supported the recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission based on the fact that these closures and realignments, although inconvenient, would end up saving money in the long run and addressing the changing requirements of our military. It now appears that cost-benefit analysis has changed. The BRAC COP Act will work to ensure that the 2005 BRAC law, and any future BRAC laws, do not go grossly over budget.

This bill is good for our military and our communities, and I ask my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible legislation.

Mr. President, one of the primary goals of the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process is to reduce costs. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of implementing BRAC balloon out of control. Back in 2005, Congress agreed to implement the recommendations of the BRAC Commission based on the understanding that it would cost the American taxpayers $21 billion, a substantial investment. But now, only two years later, we are looking at a price tag of $30 billion, which is a 43 percent increase.

If costs continue to rise at this rate, we will be looking at even more of a burden on the American taxpayer by the time the base closures and realignments are completed in 2011. In my home State of New Jersey, we are keenly aware of some of the wildly inaccurate cost estimates used in the BRAC process. The closing of New Jersey's army base at Fort Monmouth was originally expected to cost $780 million, now we are looking at a $1.5 billion price tag. Part of this inflated cost is due to the egregious miscalculations on how much it would cost to move the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, currently located in New Jersey, to West Point, NY. Although the BRAC Commission's original, one-time implementation cost estimate was $29 million, current estimates put the move at nearly $200 million. Many communities and families will be greatly impacted by the closing of Fort Monmouth and the relocation of the military prep school. Knowing that these decisions were based on miscalculations and misinformation does not sit well with our State, and it should not sit well with taxpayers across the country either. If American families are being forced to foot a bill they weren't expecting, there should be an escape hatch.

That is why I am introducing the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 2007 or the BRAC COP Act. This legislation will work to control the excessive cost overruns in BRAC and ensure that BRAC is maximizing our taxpayers' money. This bill, which I am introducing with Senator Lautenberg, is based on principles found in existing law concerning cost overruns in weapons programs, known as the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Let me take a few moments to discuss exactly how this legislation will work.

The BRAC COP Act will create a trigger mechanism to require a re- evaluation of any major base closure or realignment should the actual cost exceed BRAC's estimated cost by more than 25 percent. In order to monitor BRAC costs, this bill will require the Secretary of Defense to write biannual reports on the costs of implementing the pending base closure or realignment recommendations mandated by BRAC law. If the secretary determines that the actual cost of implementing a major base closure or realignment recommendation has exceeded the 25 percent threshold, the Defense Secretary will then notify the Chairman and Ranking Member the Congressional Defense Committees and devise a business plan to reduce the cost, without readjusting the baseline estimated cost, so that it does not exceed the 25 percent limit.

The Secretary will then make a recommendation to the President on whether to continue the base closure or realignment. The BRAC COP Act also supports transparency in this process, so if the Defense Secretary recommends that the President continue or modify the base closure or realignment, despite the excessive cost overruns, the Secretary must include an explanation of why it is necessary to continue with these expenditures. After reviewing the Secretary's recommendation, the President will make his own recommendation and submit it to Congress. Just like the congressional procedure for voting on BRAC law, Congress will then have the option to vote to disapprove the President's recommendation.

Let me be clear: this legislation will not overturn BRAC, nor is it intended to re-open the BRAC process. This bill simply asks that the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Congress take a second look when we face exhorbant cost overruns. The BRAC COP Act will only affect the largest base closures and realignments that are over budget, so we will not be analyzing every single one of the BRAC recommendations.

It is time that the Defense Department is held more accountable for its expenditures. This Congress and the American people do not want to continue providing blank checks so that the Pentagon can rework its accounting tables, regardless of the costs. Congress supported the recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission based on the fact that these closures and realignments, although inconvenient, would end up saving money in the long run and addressing the changing requirements of our military. It now appears that cost-benefit analysis has changed. The BRAC COP Act will work to ensure that the 2005 BRAC law, and any future BRAC laws, do not go grossly over budget.

This bill is good for our military and our communities, and I ask my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible legislation.

Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague from Washington State providing the time.

I rise in strong support of the Salazar-Menendez amendment. I expect from all of the voices I have heard in our debate about immigration as part of this Homeland Security bill that we will have resounding support for this amendment, because I know those who want to protect the United States at its border crossings are going to want to protect all of its border crossings.

I have heard a lot about our challenges along our southern border, but I have heard nothing about our challenges along our northern border. In that respect, I think it is important to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that over the last several years, according to official reports, the Congressional Research Service tells us there have been nearly 69,000 individuals who have crossed over the northern border and, of course, that number is small in comparison because we don't have the Border Patrol agents on the northern border to be dealing with the interdictions that would be called for.

So while there are 13,488 Border Patrol agents in the entire force, there are only 965 agents along the northern border. That northern border has over 5,525 miles of border between the United States and the North, significantly more than the 1,993 miles along the southern border. Yet over 69,000 people have crossed, to our knowledge, because if you divide out the number of Border Patrol agents at any given time on the northern border, they are looking at patrolling hundreds and hundreds of miles for a fraction of what is the Border Patrol on any given shift. Therefore, what that number tells us is that while thousands cross on the northern border, we don't even know the magnitude of it, because we are not paying attention. We are not paying attention on the northern border.

I will remind my colleagues that it was Ahmed Ressam in 1999, December of 1999, the millennium bomber, who came in through the northern border of the United States. We don't seem to be concerned about the northern border. What Senator Salazar's and my amendment simply does is to make sure that we are, in fact, looking at all of our international borders and allocating the resources appropriately.

Now, unless this debate is about something more than protecting the United States, we should have a resounding vote. Because if you are concerned about one terrorist coming through a border, you should be concerned about a border that is far more porous, far greater in length; the one that actually has a history of having someone who sought to commit an act of violence within the United States crossing that northern border--one that is totally undermanned in the context of protecting that border and, obviously, it means we have far greater numbers than the 69,000; at the same time, one in which we have actually seen the number of Border Patrol agents decrease. We have a mandate in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act that mandated that the Canadian border receive increases in Border Patrol agents equal to 20 percent of the Border Patrol agents that exist. And, ultimately, we have seen a reduction during fiscal year 2005-2006 in the total number of Border Patrol agents by nearly 9 percent.

So we have a history of people crossing the border, a history of the millennium bomber. Yet we have a decrease in Border Patrol agents who are on the northern border. You are either for protecting the country or you are not. By the way, if I were a terrorist, and I wanted to get into the United States, and the bottom line is that I know they are going to put everybody down at the southern border, guess what. I would be coming through the northern border because with over 5,500 miles and with only 965 total Border Patrol agents for three shifts around the clock for that whole stretch, that makes it a much greater percentage for me to be able to come over the northern border than to face the challenges of the southern border.

I know our colleagues here who care so much, as we do, about the national security and the defense of this country are going to give this amendment an overwhelming vote. I expect it to be accepted by a voice vote. If the answer is no, we are not concerned about the northern border, then I have to question the motives of some in this debate because we are either concerned about the security of the country or we have a certain prejudice over a certain part of what we consider a threat to the United States. Porous borders are a collective threat. But when we focus all of our time and attention at one end, let's leave a wide gaping hole on the other part, the one that has over 2\1/2\ times more territory to cover and has probably 10 percent of all the Border Patrol agents in the country.

I am sure this will be accepted by voice or we will have an overwhelming vote because the absence of having an overwhelming vote to make sure we protect our country indicates to me that the concern of some is not about protecting our country, the concern of some is that, in fact, they have a concern about who comes to this country--not because they seek to provide an act of terrorism, but because of who they are. So I think this will be a defining moment in which we can collectively work to protect our country, make sure we have the appropriate resources and allocations of them to the northern border as well as the southern border, make sure that we fill up all of our security gaps and, therefore, strengthen the security of the country. In the absence of that, many of us will have to question what this debate has really been about.

With that, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Is it the intention of the Senator from Washington-- while I understand this is simply for the purposes of an order, are we expecting, regardless of the order, a vote to be called on the Salazar amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to talk about a bill that I am proud of, and of which all Americans should be proud.

I first want to commend the esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd for his commitment to drafting a bill that is in our Nation's best interest. I also would like to convey my respect for Senator Byrd and the ranking member, Senator Cochran, for the exemplary bipartisan they have shown in negotiating this bill and bringing it to the floor.

The Homeland Security Appropriations bill that will be before us later

today is a clear indication that our priorities have changed. After years of neglecting key homeland security initiatives, this bill ends a trend that has been straining our first responders, forcing our States to come up with more, and leaving us more vulnerable than we should be 6 years after September 11.

This bill is part of a framework that we have created this year to restructure our priorities--and it is clear that homeland security is at the top of the list. I am proud of the levels we set in the budget resolution we passed earlier this year. As a member of the Budget Committee, one of my top requests to Chairman Conrad was that we provide enough to the Appropriations Committee so that it could not just reject the President's cuts to key homeland security funding, but go above and beyond what has been funded in recent years. I thank Chairman Conrad, for his commitment to homeland security funding in the budget resolution and for understanding what those funds mean to a State like New Jersey.

This year we have set the tone. The message is clear--when it comes to homeland security, the status quo just won't cut it. This bill says that loud and clear. By increasing overall funding by 8 percent over last year, we recognize that those on our front lines need our support. In this bill, they will get it.

For New Jersey, the funds in this bill mean the difference between having what we need to protect our high-risk areas and leaving our infrastructure vulnerable. The grants this bill provides means millions more for our ports to increase site security and implement key initiatives.

The increases for next year mean our fire departments will have the resources they need to hire new firefighters, to upgrade their equipment, and to reduce the long shifts far too many of them are working. The focus on first responder funding means our law enforcement will continue to have support to carry out key terrorism prevention efforts in our cities.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill does not take the approach that we can do what is minimally required and pretend that is enough. For all of the President's talks about how critical security at home is, for all the administration continues to warn us about how at risk we are for an attack, I am just dumbfounded because no matter where I look, I cannot find where he makes supporting our first responders a priority. No matter how hard I try, I cannot see how he expects our ports to be as secure as they should be 6 years after September 11. For all the reminders this administration likes to give the American people that we are at war, that we are vulnerable, that we must be vigilant, I do not see where we are matching that rhetoric with dollars.

This bill is about more than rhetoric. It is about providing what is needed.

I am proud that this bill rejects the President's cuts to first responders, and actually increases funding by $644 million. Nearly 6 years after September 11, would seem unfathomable that we would actually cut funding for first responders, but that is exactly what the President's budget called for.

In this bill, we provide more than $400 million than the President for firefighters. We increase funding for FIRE grants by $25 million more than last year so that fire departments can purchase new equipment. When nearly a third of firefighters are not equipped with a self-contained breathing apparatus or portable radios, I think there is no question that these funds are sorely needed. One of the grant programs I hear about the most, as I am sure do many members, is the SAFER grants. I have listened to firefighters from my State far too many times plead for the SAFER grants not to be cut. And yet, every year, this is a fight we have had to have with the administration. I truly hope this is the last year. These grants help departments increase their staff, often so they can cover more 24-hour shifts. Our bill increases funding by $13 million over last year.

I am also extremely proud of the direction this bill takes us for improving key grant funding to States and our most at-risk areas. This bill restores the two major grant programs, the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and increases funding for urban area security grants. For reasons I cannot explain, the President sought to cut State homeland grants in half, and practically eliminate the law enforcement grants.

For States like New Jersey, these funds are not just an added bonus-- they are essential. These grants allow States to purchase equipment, train first responders, put in place response plans, and a whole host of other critical activities. By restoring cuts to these programs, officials in New Jersey will have the confidence that we are working to provide them every last dollar, and that we understand how critical this funding is.

Our bill also provides an increase for the Urban Area Security Initiative, the only fully-risked based funding of its kind, designed to help the most high-threat urban areas. I have spoken on this floor before about the unique threats that our UASI--Urban Area Security Initiative--region in northern New Jersey faces. As one of the most densely populated areas in the Nation, we face the complexity of populous neighborhoods nestled among high-profile infrastructure, including the largest port on the east coast, a major international airport, and a string of chemical plants--which makes up what is known as the ``2 most dangerous miles'' in America. When people back home hear that, they ask me what we are doing to protect that area, because those 2 miles are not isolated--thousands drive by it every day, and many live close enough to call it their backyard. When we pass this bill, I can tell them that yes, we are working to make more funding available, yes, we are addressing those areas most at risk.

Our bill also seeks to end the trend of pouring our resources into aviation security and spending pennies in comparison on rail, mass transit, port, and chemical security. This bill more than doubles funding for rail and transit security, and far exceeds what our past funding bills have done for port security. We provide $400 million for port security grants, a level which our ports have been calling for for some time.

Anyone who knows the Port of New York and New Jersey understands the daunting task of securing the perimeter of the port. The port is surrounded by storage facilities and warehouses, with waterways on one side, and a major highway and an airport on the other, and rail lines and a major pipeline running along side it. So, for a site as complex as our port, perimeter security is no easy feat.

Our Nation's ports have a long to-do list, and I guarantee you, every one of the improvements they want to make costs money. In the wake of the SAFE Port Act, which the President signed into law last year, our ports have even more requirements they are supposed to carry out. Yet the President did not call for any funding to implement these initiatives. Our bill does.

We double port security grants, to the level authorized in the SAFE Port Act.

We provide $15 million for the Coast Guard so they can increase the number of inspections at facilities, conduct vulnerability assessments, and develop long-range vessel tracking systems.

We provide $60 million for operational centers as called for in the SAFE Port Act that will help coordinate information sharing, intelligence gathering, and support cooperation among Federal, State, and local agencies.

And, we provide $15 million to help ports implement the TWIC port worker ID program, which has been delayed again and again. It is past time for us to have something as simple as uniform, technologically advanced ID cads for those workers at our ports.

This bill also contains a very short, but very crucial provision that is well known to people in New Jersey. It allows States to have more stringent chemical security standards. If you have ever been to Newark's Liberty Airport, than you were within a few short miles of the Kuehne plant in South Kearny, in a range that would without question be devastated by an attack at that facility. Because plants like this one are uniquely sandwiched between highways and neighborhoods, in an area that rises to the level of being called the ``2 most dangerous miles,'' New Jersey has taken action to make sure we are doing everything possible to keep these plants secure.

Because it is far ahead of the curve when it comes to chemical security, the notion that the Department of Homeland Security can issue regulations that could preempt New Jersey's, and possibly be weaker than our standards, turns logic on its head. The bottom line is, when it comes to the security of things uniquely New Jersey, like the location of this chemical plant, no one knows what we need better than our State. And that is the position that this bill takes. I applaud my fellow Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, for ensuring this language is part of this bill, and I thank Senator Byrd for realizing how essential preserving New Jersey's standards are for the future of chemical security.

When this Homeland Security appropriations bill is passed and signed into law, we will be able to definitively say we have passed legislation that makes us smarter and stronger when it comes to our Nation's security.

The bill ensures we are protecting, not neglecting, our critical infrastructure; our first responders have more, not less, to do their jobs; and our States will have the critical resources they deserve.

I urge all my colleagues to support this incredibly sound bill and take this important step to getting our homeland security funding where it should be in finally meeting the challenge of securing our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the minimum wage increase, which takes effect today.

Today, millions of hard-working Americans will finally receive the first increase of a $2.10 raise in the Federal minimum wage. Today, we are putting an end to a decade-long stagnant wage that has kept those who are working their hardest at the bottom of the ladder. Today, they are getting the chance that everyone in this country deserves--the opportunity to build a better life.

Now, $2.10 may not sound like much to most Americans. But that small increase will make a difference in the pockets and in the lives of millions of Americans. Those $2.10 add up to more than $4,400 more every year enough to help a low-income family depending on a minimum wage income to afford 2 years of child care, a year and a half in utility bills, or a year of tuition at a public college.

I am also proud that my State of New Jersey has not waited for Congress to do what is right. Instead, New Jersey has taken it upon itself to increase the State minimum wage far in advance of Congress, which now is at $7.15 per hour. New Jersey's minimum wage has given more than a quarter million workers the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families.

And today, all Americans earning minimum wage will have that same opportunity to build a better life. In enacting the first minimum wage increase in over a decade, Congress took a critical first step towards correcting a grave injustice. For far too long, we have let some of our hardest working employees--those who prepare our food, clean our offices, treat us at the doctor, and guard our buildings at night--see their wages erode by 10 years of inflation.

Ten years is far too long for those who work round the clock, hoping to save a little extra for groceries, for those working so they can buy school supplies or clothes for their children, or for those saving so one day they can live in a place they are proud to call home.

Today, we should also commit that never again will we let this injustice persist for 10 years. The increase going into effect today is an important improvement, but it is not the end of the battle. An increase in the minimum wage is only part of the solution.

We cannot ignore that the income gap has been widening--and now it has taken on a new twist. We no longer have inequality just between those living comfortably and those struggling to make ends meet. Income is now more concentrated at the top than it has been in the past 70 years. In fact, as the wealthiest 1 percent have seen their income grow by 20 percent or more within the past few years, everyone else has seen their income grow by less than 4 percent.

And that inequality is ever too real for women and minorities, who are more likely to be minimum wage earners.

So while increasing the minimum wage is just one step toward closing the income gap, it is an important step.

Ultimately, a wage increase is about fairness, about ensuring all Americans, not just those at the top, can share in the American dream.

Before today, 13 million minimum wage workers did not have the chance to share in that dream.

Before today, 4 million Latinos and African Americans earned less than $7.25 an hour with no expectation that their wages would rise.

Before today, nearly 7 million women, who make up well over half of minimum wage workers, would not have seen their wages increase.

And before today, a minimum wage earner with a family of three would be making $6,000 below the poverty level. Before today, that family would not have a way out of poverty and into prosperity.

We have changed the course, not just for minimum wage workers but for our country. We have finally taken steps toward providing greater equality and given our hardest workers and their families the chance to earn a wage of dignity and respect.

A wage increase is only a downpayment on our promise to all Americans--it is a preview of what is to come. Democrats pledge to continue to change the course to ensure all Americans and their families have a fair shot at achieving the American dream.

Thank you. I yield the floor

For about 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I also rise in strong support of the higher education reauthorization bill before the Senate today.

I first thank my colleague, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, a true champion for education in our country. Senator Kennedy's vision for higher education will help make sure college is more accessible and affordable to all our young people regardless of their race, their class, or their income. It is because of the vision of Senator Kennedy, of Senator Pell before, and others that the doors to college have been opened to millions of Americans who otherwise would not have had access to that American dream.

I appreciate Senator Enzi's leadership as well in bringing and moving this bill on the floor. I salute him for all of his work, both on the bill we had last week and now the bill we have today. It is a tremendous testament of what we can do when we join in a common cause.

As someone whose dreams of college could not have been realized without the power of the Pell grant and without other Federal aid, I am proud to be able to support legislation that will open the doors for the next generation of students in this country. Without the critical assistance I received, I would never have been able to be the first in my family to graduate from college, then later from law school, and I certainly wouldn't be speaking here on the floor of the Senate.

The bill before us takes great steps toward improving and leveling the playing field for all students so that more students are able to access and afford a higher education. Today, all students do not have an equal chance to attend college. As an example, Latinos and African Americans are less likely to be able to afford college and, therefore, more likely to qualify for Federal financial aid. Latinos and African Americans are 40 to 60 percent less likely to earn a bachelor's degree in their lifetime than other students. By also expanding Federal aid opportunities for minorities, the bill will help improve those numbers and close the gap in higher education.

My own story of growing up poor yet having the opportunity to fulfill my dream of attending college because of Federal aid is still true as a challenge for so many of our young people today, and it will continue to be for the young people of tomorrow.

The changes in this bill come at a critical time. It is projected that by the year 2015, 8 short years from now, college enrollment of African-American students will increase by 23 percent, and for Latinos that number will increase by a whopping 73 percent. Moreover, 75 percent of undergraduate students are nontraditional students, meaning they either are attending part time and working full time, non-high school graduates, or have dependents, among other characteristics. The student populations of our Nation's colleges will increasingly reflect the changing landscape of our country. So this bill is going to help all of our students.

More and more of our students will not be the sons and daughters of previous college graduates. The student of tomorrow will be a mother who juggles a full-time job and attends community college part time at night so she can gain skills that will lead to a better job and provide her children economic security.

The student of tomorrow will be a naturalized U.S. citizen who, with the help of Federal aid, can fulfill his dream of becoming an engineer who can give back to this country by helping build new infrastructure.

The student of tomorrow will be a foster child who is able to attend college with Federal aid and fulfill her dream of becoming a nurse so she can not only live a stable life but give back to a system that saved hers.

The student of tomorrow will be a bright high school student who works part time through college and despite his family's low income can attend the college of his choice because of Pell and Perkins.

These are the students who will help define the students of our Nation--the first-generation students breaking through new barriers, the parents working to improve life for their children, the naturalized citizen building a better life in this country. They will each be charting their own path, able to realize their dreams because of the opportunity only a college education can provide.

How well educated they are will not just determine how successful they are in the workforce but how successful our Nation is in the global economy. As a nation, I am convinced that the single greatest asset we will have in this global economy is our collective intellect. To be a leader globally, we will have to be at the apex of the curve of intellect. That means the most highly educated generation this Nation has ever known. To get there, our education pipeline must be accessible and affordable to a great cross-section of young people.

However, rising costs, combined with far too stagnant growth in family income and declining Federal aid, have effectively priced out many students. Even with student loans and work study, today's students have thousands in unmet financial need they often cannot afford to pay. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to have our students priced out of a college education. Our Nation's future depends on it.

The legislation before us will make key changes to help ensure the doors to college remain open to all, not just those who can afford it out of pocket. This bill realizes that improving access to college does not just mean increasing funding. Improving access to college means curbing rising tuition costs so that young people will be able to better afford a higher education. This bill will hold colleges accountable for rising tuition costs by making tuition data public and available so students and their families can compare costs. By publicizing costs to prospective families, colleges will need to justify tuition increases that far exceed those of comparable institutions.

Improving access to college means reforming the student loan system so students get loans that are fair, not loans that wash them away in debt. Outrageous loan debt is forcing borrowers to delay either buying a home in the future or taking the dream job of their choice after college simply because it will not pay enough. This bill reverses this troubling trend by not only expanding Federal aid but ensuring students are getting the best possible deal when they take out a loan.

Improving access to college also means starting at the first step-- filling out the forms. As someone who had to fill out the FAFSA form by myself, it was pretty daunting. For any student facing this process on their own or for families with income, language, or other barriers, the financial aid process itself can be overwhelming. By reducing the FAFSA from 10 pages to 2

pages, we make it easier for students to accomplish the very first step necessary to get financial aid.

By improving access to college, it also means helping students get on the right path early by strengthening and expanding programs such as GEAR UP and TRIO, by promoting quality teacher preparation programs, and helping high-needs public schools recruit and retain high-quality teachers. This bill takes low-income and first-generation students closer to their dreams of college.

We also need to expand access beyond the undergraduate realm. I am particularly pleased that this bill expands funding for minority- serving institutions and specifically supports the creation of graduate programs at Hispanic-serving institutions, a proposal I have supported for a long time. Latinos currently make up less than 6 percent of graduate students, and by expanding opportunities at Hispanic-serving institutions which enroll more than 50 percent of all Latino students in this country, this expansion is an important step to ensuring the Nation's graduate and doctorate students reflect the diversity of our Nation.

Ensuring our students are prepared to be the next generation of innovators, business owners, and leaders requires a serious commitment to making college affordable and accessible. This means making education work for all students. That is why we must take the steps to increase critical grant aid and strengthen key programs to help open the doors to college for all our young people. We must ensure our young people are getting the best possible deal when they apply to college and that every student who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to graduate from college.

I believe that in this Nation in which this challenge for us globally is so significant, in which an engineer's report is created in India and transmitted back to the United States for a fraction of the cost, in which a radiologist's report is done in Pakistan and sent to your local hospital, read by your local doctor, if you have a problem with a credit card, as I recently did, you may end up in a call center in South Africa, in the pursuit of human capital for the creation of a product for the delivery of a service; we are globally challenged. That is why this ability to have a generation that has the greatest educational achievement is so important to the Nation's competitive future.

I want to make sure that the opportunity I had as someone who had challenges is an opportunity that can be met by every student who is willing to work hard, has the ability, and gives something back to their country. This bill is going to make that happen. I think this bill takes us significantly in the right direction. I hope it will have incredibly robust support when its final passage comes up for a vote.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Levin- Reed amendment. That is the amendment that, unlike the Iraq Study Group, has a date certain for changing and transitioning our mission and bringing our troops home. Maybe if the Senate had listened to the Iraq Study Group last year when it presented its report and had adopted it and moved in that direction, we would not be where we are today. I personally believe it is well past time to now suggest that it is appropriate to adopt their recommendations when what we need is a date certain.

We are here tonight to ask for a vote, not just any vote. We are here to ask for a fundamental American principle: a majority vote for majority rule. Not a supermajority vote of 60 votes. A majority vote for majority rule, the same principle that has stood our country over the test of time, the same principle that average Americans fully understand, the same principle that would reflect the reality of where the American public is as it relates to this critical issue. A majority vote for a majority rule. Not just any vote.

We are here tonight because the American people deserve an up-or-down vote on this important amendment that will finally bring an end to this mismanaged war.

The war in Iraq, in my mind, is the most pressing issue of our day, and the fact that the Republican leadership and those who join them will not allow the Senate to have a straight up-or-down vote, a simple majority vote, speaks of obstructionism and of hiding behind procedural roadblocks in order to avoid facing the American people who have called for a change of course in Iraq.

Those of us who voted against the war, as I did in the first place, against popular opinion of the time, have been vindicated by history. I say to my colleagues, history will judge the votes we

cast tomorrow, and I believe those who vote against a simple majority rule and changing the course will be judged harshly.

The President has lost the support of the American public and the confidence of the global community. The only support for his misguided policy in Iraq is a minority, a minority, in the Senate. That is why they are afraid of a simple up-or-down vote on this issue because given in this body a simple majority vote proposition, a majority of the Senate would vote to transition us out of Iraq and bring our men and women home. That is why they are afraid of the vote that we ask for.

Unfortunately, some--and I say ``some'' because I know some of our Republican colleagues have joined us in the past and will again--some of my Republican colleagues seem more interested in protecting the President than doing right, in my mind, by our troops. To the Republican leadership and those who support them, I say it is time to stop filibustering and time to start a vote, a simple majority vote for majority rule.

Maybe if more of the sons and daughters, husbands and wives, or sisters and brothers of Members of the Senate were in Iraq, some of my colleagues would not be so cavalier about filibustering an up-or-down, simple majority vote. If our loved ones were in Iraq, who among us would be content with the counsels of patience and delay? Who among us would be satisfied with another mission accomplished? Who among us would be satisfied with ``victory is around the next corner''? Who among us would be satisfied with benchmarks of which not one--not one-- has been accomplished, and yet we somehow suggest that is progress years later?

After 4 years of a failed policy, it is time to stop hiding behind procedural hurdles and allow the Senate to cast a definitive vote about our future course in Iraq. A majority vote for majority rule.

The American people are waiting impatiently for the Senate to heed their calls and face the facts on the ground. It is time for a responsible change of course in Iraq. And that is exactly what the amendment on which we want a simple majority vote--let's see how people vote, a simple majority vote--does.

The Levin-Reed amendment says our forces should be out of Iraq by April 30 of next year, except those needed to protect U.S. personnel, to train Iraqi security forces and for counterterrorism activities.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed very similar legislation, sending a clear message that the time for change has come. The only obstacle left is for this body to act with a simple majority vote.

Now the Senate, once again, faces a critical vote on Iraq, and I point out, as I did a few days ago when we debated an amendment to take care of our troops--we hear all the time about ``support the troops.'' Yet we had to have a supermajority vote to simply permit the rotation of our troops to be able to have a year back at home for every year they served abroad, a proposition that even the Defense Department has as its goal. No, we couldn't have a simple majority vote on that issue; we had to have a 60-vote threshold. Support the troops?

The only way we could have done that was with bipartisan support, and we didn't get it. The only way we can stop this war is with bipartisan support. But so long as we keep having these 60-vote thresholds, Democrats have 51 votes in this body and that leaves us 9 votes short. The American people know that. That is why we want a simple majority vote for majority rule.

Despite overwhelming public support, the public is way ahead of this institution, the American people are way ahead of this institution, and growing support from some of our Republican colleagues, which I respect--Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster in the Senate.

I know that many more of our Republican colleagues have serious concerns about the war in Iraq. I have been reading about it. I have been reading in the local and national papers of so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We have grave reservations about where the President is continuing to take us. We believe we have to have some type of change. I urge them to listen to their inner voice. I urge them to find their moral compass. I urge them to back their strong words with meaningful votes.

A vote for Levin-Reed, a simple up-or-down vote, is a vote to transition out of Iraq, a vote to change the course, a vote to end the war.

Robert Kennedy said about the war in Vietnam:

Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy

is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which

to live.

``Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.''

He went on to say:

All men make mistakes, but a good man--

And I would paraphrase in today's terms, a good woman--

yields when [they] know [their] cost is wrong, and repairs

the evil. The only sin--

The only sin--

is pride.

This is not an issue where we can afford the sin of pride to deviate us, to take us into the appropriate course, to change the course in Iraq.

The lessons of history are poignant and instructive about today's quagmire. Rather than hiding behind a shrinking minority and procedural posturing, Republicans should listen to the American people and change the course of this failed war policy. They should stand with the American people and tell the President, even though we have given him opportunities, even though previous efforts of the Senate have given him flexibility, he has outright rejected it and, so, yes, there must be a date certain, and the message to the President by this body is if you are not going to bring our troops home, then we will.

I have heard many of my colleagues claim that what is happening now on the Senate floor is nothing more than political theater. The war in Iraq is the single greatest issue before the country and before this Senate. How many lives, how much money, how much risk to our security by being bogged down in Iraq, when we have real challenges in the world such as Iran, when we have a reconstituted al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is the real challenge. That is the real challenge, I say to my friends. This is not about political theater. If there is political theater here, it is the sad, sad plot that the Republican leadership has weaved in creating this procedural hurdle to not permit a simple majority vote for majority rule.

I heard my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, for whom I have enormous respect, lament the proceedings as partisan. I have the deepest respect for him, but I couldn't more passionately disagree with him. This isn't about partisanship. These are deeply held views of principle--principle that moves us to take these extraordinary measures so we can get a simple majority vote for majority rule. That is what we are simply seeking tonight.

So to the Republican leadership and those who support them, I say it is time to stop filibustering and time to permit a simple majority vote to allow us to change the course in Iraq.

Today we are living with the consequences of the administration's failed policy, and only a minority of the Senate wants to stay that failed course. Over 3,600 troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war, including 87 servicemembers with ties to my home State of New Jersey. April and May was the deadliest 2-month period of the war for U.S. troops, with 230 servicemembers killed.

We have now spent over $450 billion on the war in Iraq, with a burn rate of $10 billion a month. Frankly, I never believed the administration's estimates that the so-called surge would only cost $5.6 billion. We have been misled time and time again, and these new numbers only prove once again we have been misled.

Each day we read horrific stories about the violence and tragedy on the streets of Iraq. This week officials report that dozens of Shiites were massacred by Sunni extremists during an overnight raid in Diyala Province. Yesterday, suicide car bombs in Kirkuk killed more than 80 people and injured some 150 others. It was the deadliest attack the city had seen since the beginning of the war. In fact, suicide attacks have more than doubled across Iraq from 26 in January to 58 in April.

In terms of reconstruction, measurements we all previously swore ourselves to be listening to, oil production in Iraq is still lower than it was before the war, and Baghdad is getting less than 6 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war.

That is why we must proceed with a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment and bring an end to our military involvement in Iraq which has cost our country so dearly in human lives and national treasure.

Even all of the military personnel tell us we cannot have a military victory in Iraq. When I listen to General Pace say we need the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors, that is probably a powerful truism, but it does not come through the power of military might. That is about reconciliation, confidence-building measures, revenue sharing, and participation of all Iraqi society in the Government. It does not come through the barrel of a gun to have the Iraqis love their children more than they hate their enemies.

So to the Republican leadership and those who support them, it is time to stop filibustering and time to permit us a simple majority vote for majority rule.

Let me take a minute to discuss the administration's recent report on benchmarks in Iraq which President Bush is using as a justification for the United States to stay in Iraq.

Just as some were misled into the war, I think this report is misleading. I wish to make sure everyone understands exactly what it says because I have listened to the debate and, boy, has it been mischaracterized, as far as I am concerned. I am sure not intentionally because people read the document different ways. Let me tell what it clearly says to me.

The report did not say that eight of the benchmarks had been met. Instead, the report said that satisfactory progress, a very significant distinction, has been made on only 8 of 18 benchmarks in Iraq, while the rest have not even seen--not even seen--satisfactory progress. In simple terms, none of the benchmarks were met.

Let's make it clear: None of the benchmarks were met. And when this report came out, President Bush said:

Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will

likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the

political benchmarks. Those of us who believe that the battle

in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance

on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for

optimism.

I want to reiterate to the President the fact that none of the benchmarks were actually met. None.

Now, let me be clear. The absolute best version of the story is that the Iraqis made some progress on some of the benchmarks. That is it. But the fact is, zero out of 18 benchmarks were met, and this is after years, and this is after changing the goalposts so that we can continue to suggest that we are making progress. If we kept the goalposts where they were supposed to be, we would have an even greater rate of failure.

So I don't see any cause for optimism for this failed strategy of escalation. Frankly, I think the President's comments represent yet another example of the administration's delusion and denial.

For years, this administration has refused to face the truth about Iraq. Let's take a look at some of the benchmarks the Bush administration told us would be met.

We were told by the end of 2006 that a provincial election law would be approved and new election laws would be put in place. But that benchmark has not been met.

We were told the Iraqis would approve a law for debaathification. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the Iraqi Parliament is barely functioning. It is stuck in gridlock. Even worse, one of the Bush administration's best Iraqi allies, Ahmed Chalabi, has been leading the charge--this is one of the administration's best allies who has been leading the charge--to block the debaathification legislation.

We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian militias. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the Iraqi Government hasn't disarmed the Shia militias, and the security situation on the ground continues to rage out of control. The surge hasn't staunched the violence, and civilian casualties were actually higher in June than in February when the surge began.

We were told that the Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues in Iraqi society. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the oil law is stuck in parliamentary gridlock, and it is unclear whether it actually addresses even the core issues.

We were told that by March, this past March, that the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments necessary for a government of national unity to possibly exist. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, 3 years after the United States turned over power to the Iraqi Government, the Iraqis still don't have the constitution finished.

The Bush administration seems to think that ``satisfactory progress'' has been made on performing a constitutional review committee. But in fact this committee has had to keep extending deadlines to get their work done, and it is unclear whether they will even meet the next deadline at the end of this month.

As I said before, it is time that the administration and the President finally face the real facts. And the fact is, by invading Iraq, the President took our focus away from the war in Afghanistan-- the birthplace of the Taliban, the home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of September 11 were planned.

Now, nearly 6 years after those terrible attacks on the United States, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate tells us that al-Qaida is operating where? In a safe zone along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border. Let me repeat that. Al-Qaida is operating, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, in a safe zone along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In fact, according to the New York Times:

U.S. officials have warned publicly that a deal between the

Pakistani government and tribal leaders allowed al-Qaida to

plot and train more freely in parts of western Pakistan for

the last 10 months.

It is clear that by shifting our efforts to Iraq, we have taken our eye off the original threat in Afghanistan. We cannot forget that our fight against terrorism started where it should have, in Afghanistan-- an engagement that I supported--where it should have remained. But we have not yet been able to end the fight in Afghanistan.

Now, as I listened to the debate here today, some of our Republican colleagues are back to the same parroting of the same old refrains--it won't work--criticizing Democrats as being weak on defense. It is we who have consistently called for finishing the job we started in Afghanistan, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice, and as far as I am concerned, to have him meet his maker. It was a Democratic Senator who offered a higher ransom on Osama bin Laden's head. It is Democrats, through the supplemental appropriations bill, who funded the resources for those men and women whom we supposedly are going to stand by so that they would have the plated jackets that they needed, and whom we sent into war without having the resources they needed, the vehicles to protect their lives as they seek to pursue their mission, the opportunity to make sure that a grateful nation says we are grateful not just on Memorial Day, marching in a parade, or on Veterans Day, going to an observance, which we should, but in how we treat those men and women in their injuries, in their disabilities, and for those who commit the ultimate sacrifice, in how we take care of their survivors. That is what Democrats did when they achieved the majority in this institution.

So that old refrain, my friends, that Democrats are weak on defense, that dog won't hunt.

I joined a rally earlier tonight outside the Capitol with Iraqi war veterans. In my mind, no one--no one--has a greater right to question their Government and to say, as they did, that it is time to change the course in Iraq and bring their fellow soldiers home, and that is what they said tonight. They hold the high ground in any debate.

Afghanistan was the right place to pursue the national security of the

United States. It was in Afghanistan that the murderers of September 11 were located. We had Osama bin Laden pinned down in the mountains of Tora Bora. But instead of having a large contingent of the best trained, most equipped, most technologically advanced military in the world go after him, we outsourced the job to the warlords. We gave them money, and they put the money in their pockets and they let bin Laden get away.

Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of the Taliban, the new threats of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and the increasing poppy cultivation. A few years ago, I talked about the possibility of the Iraqitization of Afghanistan, and now we see some of those fears coming true.

Just last month, Afghan security forces found a new type of sophisticated roadside bomb, one that is very similar to that being used in Iraq. Afghans, and our troops in Afghanistan, face the daily horror of roadside bombs targeting civilians or coalition forces.

The Taliban continues its battle to terrorize the Afghan people. As the New York Times article said last week:

Shootings, beheadings, burnings, and bombings: These are

the tools of intimidation used by the Taliban and others to

shut down hundreds of Afghanistan's public schools. To take

aim at education is to make war on the government.

Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world's poppy, and it has a record crop again this year. Again, according to the New York Times:

Not so long ago, we trumpeted Afghanistan as a success, a

country freed from tyranny and al-Qaeda. But as the Taliban's

grip continues to tighten, threatening Afghanistan's future

and the fight against terrorism, Americans and Afghans are

frequently asking what went wrong.

My friends, what went wrong is that instead of finishing the mission in Afghanistan, the President took us to Iraq. Of course, we remember all the reasons why: weapons of mass destruction, uranium from Niger-- this in a State of the Union speech before the entire Congress, none of it true. The battle in Afghanistan, the battle against al-Qaida, the Taliban, against terrorism is far from over. Yet the United States is still held hostage by the President's war in Iraq--a war that we were led into based on a false premise, with false promises, with no plan to win the peace and no plan to succeed.

The President is fond of evoking Franklin Roosevelt and our noble mission in World War II when he talks about Iraq. But he must have forgotten that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't run off and invade China. That would have made no sense. Just like our going to Iraq made no sense because we dropped the ball in Afghanistan. The failures in Iraq, coupled with the reinvigoration of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, underscore the fiasco of the Bush administration's decision to take its focus off Afghanistan, its disastrous war policy, and the consequences of its ``stay the course'' mentality. They took their eye off the ball and created a quagmire in Iraq.

We didn't have al-Qaida in Iraq. We now have elements of al-Qaida in Iraq, but we did not have al-Qaida in Iraq before we invaded. Now we are paying the price in the form of less security and a beefed-up terrorist network. Maybe Secretary Chertoff's infamous gut feeling about an increased terror threat was caused by knowing that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies are still out there plotting and planning thousands of miles away from Iraq--thousands of miles away from Iraq.

Madam President, let me conclude by saying that the President says that the only role for Congress is to provide a blank check for his failed war policy. He is so wrong. He is so wrong. Time to reread the Constitution. This body's responsibility is not to blindly sign a blank check to the President for a failed policy. We have a responsibility to the American people as fiduciaries both in terms of national treasure and lives. Most importantly, we have a responsibility to the men and women in uniform to do the right thing and stand up to the President's failed policy so that we may give them a mission worthy--worthy--of their sacrifice. We should honor the troops who continue to sacrifice and shed blood not by being silent, not by being hoarded like sheep, not by signing on to a blank check, and not by being complicit in the President's failed war.

I have heard some of our colleagues on the other side cry that we are fighting for freedom in Iraq, but here in America, here tonight, we have a tyranny of a minority in the Senate who want to use the procedures of the Senate, in my mind in a way that is totally unacceptable, to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate, and, more importantly, the majority of the American people.

We want a vote--not just any vote, a simple majority vote for majority rule. The amendment before us reflects the reality on the ground and the will of the American people. It changes the course in Iraq by setting a responsible timetable for our troops to leave. How many more lives--how many--I hope we all go home before tomorrow's vote and say to ourselves, how many more lives, how many more tens of billions of dollars, how much more chaos? We have heard about chaos. What will happen, how much more chaos can unfold than that which we see unfolding as we have 160,000 troops there?

Years from now, we will come to the same conclusion. Or we can act with courage tomorrow in a vote, a simple majority vote, and by doing so we will be in a position to meet our national security challenges and our national interests. Our brave troops have answered the call of duty. Let's now answer the call to do what is right by them.

It is clear to me that the President continues to live in a world where the reality in Iraq never collides with his fantasy of what is happening there. It is time for the President, and a minority in the Senate who support him, to give the American people a chance for a majority vote, for a majority rule. The American people have awoken way before the Senate, and they want the nightmare to end. The American people know it is time to responsibly withdraw from Iraq. The House of Representatives voted to do so, and it is time for the Senate to finally vote for a responsible withdrawal from Iraq.

And so we close again. It is time for a simple majority vote for majority rule.

Madam President, I yield the floor.