Floor Statements

Mr. President, today is the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, one of this Nation's landmark environmental laws.

Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has provided essential protection for our Nation's waters that enhance and contribute to human health and well-being, the economy, and the environment. Yet as we celebrate the 35-year anniversary of the enactment of the Clean Water Act, Federal protections of surface waters that provide drinking water to an estimated 110 million Americans remain threatened until the U.S. Congress acts. Two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have jeopardized the protection of these and many other of our Nation's waters by calling into question the Clean Water Act protections for entire categories of waters.

In the 2006 consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Supreme Court left more than half of our Nation's waters without Federal protections. The impact of that decision is compounded by the 2001 case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, SWANCC, in which the U.S. Supreme Court limited the authority of Federal agencies to extend Clean Water Act protections to certain wetlands traditionally protected based on their use by migratory birds.

The implications of the recent Supreme Court decisions are disturbing for the safety of our drinking water, habitats for wildlife, and fragile ecosystems around the country. At the crux of the debate is the term ``navigable waters,'' which the Supreme Court used to restrict the scope of the Clean Water Act in ways never intended by Congress. The fundamental purpose of the Clean Water Act of 1972 was to protect the Nation's waters from pollution rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways.

That is why Congress extended protections to ``waters of the United States,'' and the Environmental Protection Agency's and Army Corps of Engineers' regulations have properly established the scope of waters-- including all interstate and intrastate waters--needed to be protected in order to maintain the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,'' as called for in the act. This goal cannot be achieved if Congress does not restore protections that the Supreme Court stripped from 53 to 59 percent of the total length of U.S. streams, excluding Alaska, and at least 20 million acres of so-called ``isolated'' wetlands in the lower 48 States, as estimated by the EPA.

It is important to understand that though the recent court cases focused on dredge and fill permits under section 404, the definition of ``waters of the United States'' is integral to the Federal Government's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act as a whole. This definition is the linchpin for State water quality standards under Section 302 and Section 303, national performance standards under Section 306, toxic and pretreatment standards under Section 307, oil and hazardous substance liability under Section 311, aquaculture standards under Section 318, State water quality certifications under Section 401, and national pollution discharge permitting requirements under Section 402.

In light of these Supreme Court decisions, Congress must reaffirm the original intent of the Clean Water Act and our commitment to ensuring that Americans have clean, safe water. The Clean Water Restoration Act, which I have introduced, will reestablish protection for all waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act. It will end the legal wrangling over the definition of waters protected by the original Clean Water Act by defining ``waters of the United States'' based on the longstanding definitions in EPA and U.S. Army Corps regulations.

It is a straightforward, surgical fix. Unfortunately, special interest and industry groups that opposed the Clean Water Act in 1972 are back at it again, trying to sabotage any legislation that restores critical clean water protections. They are making claims that ``every wet area'' will be regulated, which could not be further from the truth--from the downright silly accusation that swimming pools will be regulated to the flat-out incorrect accusation that ground water will be regulated. My legislation does not broaden the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Congress should not stand aside while the courts roll back more than 30 years of Federal protections for our waters. On the 35th anniversary of the enactment of the Clean Water Act, we must step in to bring clarity to a law left murky by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the administration for identifying this proposed savings of an estimated $23 million per year in its fiscal year 2008 budget. Over 5 years, this could save as much as $115 million.

We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our Nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am pleased to credit the administration for identifying this proposed savings of an estimated $23 million per year in its fiscal year 2008 budget. Over 5 years, this could save as much as $115 million.

We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and safety standards. Businesses that do not meet federal standards should bear the burden of the reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's expense.

One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal budget. I have worked throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible budgeting, Congress will saddle our Nation's younger generations with an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small step in that direction.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 and that the bill contains higher levels of funding for state and local law enforcement than Congress has provided in recent years.

I believe that Congress, in partnership with states and local communities, has an obligation to provide the tools, technology and training that our Nation's law enforcement officers need in order to protect our communities. I have consistently supported a number of Federal grant programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Program, which is instrumental in providing funding to train new officers and provide crime-fighting technologies. I also have long supported funding for the Byrne grant program, which provides funding to help fight violent and drug-related crime, including support to multijurisdictional drug task forces, drug courts, drug education and prevention programs, and many other efforts to reduce drug abuse and prosecute drug offenders. I know how important these programs have been to Wisconsin law enforcement efforts, particularly in light of the recent increase in the violent crime rate across the country.

I am pleased that the Senate approved an appropriation of $660 million for the COPS program for fiscal year 2008, $110 million above the CJS Subcommittee recommendation. This funding level, in conjunction with the House appropriation of $725 million, leaves me hopeful that Congress will ultimately fund COPS at an adequate level this year. I am pleased that both Houses of Congress took action to increase funding for COPS, especially as crime rates rise and the needs of law enforcement officers and our Nation's first responders continue to grow.

Byrne grants also fared better in fiscal year 2008 than in recent years. The House bill allocates $42 million more than it did last year, and the Senate appropriated a total of $660 million, $105 million more than last year. The Democratic majority in Congress has made it a priority to work responsibly toward restoring funding for these programs--funding that has been disastrously slashed in recent years. The level of funding included in the final version of this bill puts Congress back on track towards funding Byrne grants at higher levels.

I was pleased as well that the Senate agreed to Senator Menendez's amendment to bolster the funding for juvenile mentoring programs and Senator Dorgan's amendment to restore funding for the Drug Court program to fiscal year 2005 levels. These grant programs assist state and local governments in their efforts to pursue a comprehensive approach to crime reduction, including preventive measures and innovative approaches as well as more traditional law enforcement initiatives.

I hope that increased funding for State and local law enforcement will become a trend that continues, and that the years of neglecting our State and local law enforcement officers are finally over. It is our responsibility to support the men and women who keep our communities safe. The Senate's work today is a good start.

Mr. President, it is no secret that Africa has not been high on Congress's priority list historically. This is due to a number of reasons including that African issues have not generated the same kind of public passion and constituent attention as closer-to-home subjects like health care or education. But this is beginning to change. Interest in Africa is at its highest level in recent memory-- perhaps ever.

I am concerned, however, that because the bulk of this attention is focused on humanitarian tragedies and grave violence we are depicting a continent caught in a downward spiral, which offers little motivation for long-term U.S. engagement. Funding relief efforts in response to crises--while an important element of U.S. policy--does not address fundamental issues such as the development of democratic institutions and civil society, good governance, security and justice sector reform, and regional security arrangements. We must provide more focus on these underlying concerns--and to do so requires consistent, long-term engagement, collaboration, and commitment from national governments, regional and international organizations and, of course, bilateral donors like the United States.

Sporadic engagement that is devoid of a long- term strategy is like sticking a band aid on a gaping wound instead of taking a trip to the hospital. The abundant potential that exists in so many parts of Africa, and which the United States and others should be more actively promoting, is being stalled or even undermined by our quick-fix approach to problem-solving on the continent. Without identifying and developing the possibilities for more serious engagement, we may end up doing more harm than good.

At the end of our August recess I traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, two countries that have made impressive gains since I was last there 7 years ago. But today I want to talk about the Democratic Republic of Congo primarily, because the situation is gravely deteriorating and urgent steps much be taken to stop it from devolving further and threatening the region writ large.

Last year's historic elections in the DRC injected hopeful momentum into the war-torn country, thanks in large part to generous funding from the U.S. and others and with critical support from a strong United Nations peacekeeping mission--the largest in fact in the world. During my visit, however, I was troubled to learn of the new government's failure to consolidate and build upon this historic progress. A lack of capacity, political will, and democratic experience is reversing early gains and increasingly destabilizing an already fragile political situation. The local population is growing disenchanted with the government's inability to follow through on its election promises as decisions on key issues--including those on decentralization and the illegal exploitation of natural resources--are slow-rolled.

One of the first promises President Kabila made after his election was to restore order in the war-ravaged provinces of his country. But violence in eastern DRC has only gotten worse in recent months, not better. More than 120,000 people--many of whom voted in favor of Kabila--have been forced from their homes because of increased fighting, with little attention or assistance from the capital.

There is no easy solution to the rapidly unfolding conflict in the restive east, but it is clear that the underlying drivers for this continued violence must be addressed at the same time that the more immediate emergency needs are dealt with.

On my trip, I visited a camp for internally displaced in eastern DRC. One Congolese man, living in a camp nestled in the rolling hills outside Goma spoke for many others when he told me: We want to restart our normal agricultural work and resume our lives. We want it to be stable enough so we can do that.

I met with a group of displaced Congolese women who had been sexually abused and in many cases raped. Extreme sexual violence and rape in the DRC is so pervasive because it is committed by all actors and with little consequence. Sadly, afraid I am afraid it is not getting any better. Just 2 days after I left, tens of thousands more civilians were forced to flee their homes because of renewed fighting between the Congolese army and dissident General Laurent Nkunda's rebel forces, whose ammunition, weapons, and fighters are likely supplied by Rwanda.

In early September, U.N. peacekeepers secured an informal, and I might add, already violated truce between the government and a main rebel leader. The U.N. Security Council has appealed for more dialogue between the two warring parties but this appeal needs to be significantly amplified and backed by incentives for peace. Neighboring countries--and particularly Rwanda--need to be part of this conversation, to ensure the current situation does not worsen while also effectively addressing longstanding regional tensions.

In contrast, on a recent trip to Uganda, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs signaled that the U.S. would support regional efforts for a more militarized policy towards all rebel groups. In fact Assistant Secretary Frazer said: We feel we have the basis to assist in efforts to mop up the LRA and to get them out of Congo, out of Garamba Park. And so we will not sit still and just let them live in Garamba Park and cultivate land and kill animals. This is not the time to start talking about our support for a military solution to these conflicts.

Instead, we should seek to build upon current diplomatic initiatives--both in the region as well as at New York last week at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly.

We should work to expand existing forums such as the Tripartite Plus Commission to become genuine opportunities for political solutions. The United States, a proud champion of building strong and independent institutions that create the space for lively debate and discussion, should be advocating for enriched dialogue and diplomacy to address the entrenched problems that have allowed these conflicts to fester--or worsen. We should not be

encouraging military operations if there are other legitimate avenues open--or if they have not yet been explored. Military action should be the path of last resort, period.

The Great Lakes region is at a critical moment in its history and we run the risk of contributing to events that could have far-reaching and long-term repercussions if we do not engage responsibly. With its vast resources, the DRC could be an anchor of stability in an area that has been plagued by violence and destructive activity for decades. The changing nature of global threats could render sub-Saharan Africa--and the Great Lakes region in particular--ripe for exploitation by any number of rogue actors. We can stop this before it begins if we work to ensure stability for the long term.

Our National Security Strategy states:

We will work with others for an African continent that

lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity.

We must help strengthen Africa's fragile states and help build indigenous capability secure porous border.

I know the United States has many priorities that compete for attention and resources, but if done right, and as part of a comprehensive long-term strategy, a little can go a long way towards achieving these lofty goals in Africa. The United States should increase engagement in and expand assistance to the eastern DRC.

We should work in concert with other allies and press all regional governments--and in particular Rwanda--to adopt a renewed focus on a political solution for peace. It must be clear that the United States supports peaceful conflict resolution, and that we are not a war-mongering country that prioritizes quick military fixes over more protracted, but also more likely to be sustainable, political dialogues.

First, we must increase our support for the DRC's security sector reform initiatives by working with the Congolese government to downsize, discipline, and further transform its military. The national army must no longer be allowed to commit grave human rights abuses with abandon as this only contributes to the rampant impunity and public legitimacy deficit indicative of a weak state. Justice sector reform, within and outside the security sector, is essential in this regard.

Second, while Ambassador Bill Swing is doing an incredible job in the DRC as the Secretary General's special representative, we must augment diplomatic attention to the east part of the country by calling for the appointment of a U.N. special envoy who will work in conjunction with the current special envoy for northern Uganda--former Mozambique President Chissano. Such an initiative will jump start a regional process for political engagement that can help to reverse the current deterioration and work towards resolving longstanding grievances between a number of actors in the region. Time and time again on my recent trip I was pleased to learn of the credibility and integrity President Chissano has injected into the northern Uganda peace process; we need to see the same thing for eastern Congo.

Third, we need to significantly augment U.S. government efforts in the region. The U.S. government needs to be fully engaged to bring about stability in eastern Congo and to establish conditions for a sustainable peace throughout the region. The dearth of U.S. personnel in the DRC means we have little choice but to outsource our diplomacy to others, which should not become the norm. In the face of a steadily increasing conflict that could ignite tensions throughout the region, we should be looking to robustly increase our on-the-ground presence before it is too late.

It is the grim truth that our mission in Kinshasa is not equipped to handle the looming instability in the east and that we are limited in our engagement because we have no diplomatic presence in the conflict- affected areas.

I do not wish to insinuate that this is due to lack of interest, concern, or dedication from the committed embassy team we have on the ground in Kinshasa. On the contrary, I got to know those individuals on my recent visit and was very impressed with both their capacity and resourcefulness with the limited means available to them. It is because of this administration's myopic focus elsewhere that we are not adequately able to respond in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As a first step, the Secretary of State should dispatch a ``booster'' team to help prepare the embassy to deal with the diplomatic, humanitarian, and security work needed in order to exercise our influence and to participate in a broader international effort to prevent eastern DRC from deteriorating into complete chaos. At the same time, we need to begin looking at serious infrastructure change that will enable our front line diplomats to have the resources and flexibility they need not just in Africa, but throughout the world.

The United States has much to offer beyond public statements to ensure that violence in the DRC does not escalate further and that those who have been displaced can look forward to returning home sooner rather than later.

We in Congress need to send a strong signal that we are not going to turn a blind eye to the deteriorating situation in the east--or to the administration's inadequate response. In eastern DRC, as in other parts of Africa, we must take steps today to promote political solutions that truly address the underlying causes of conflict, or else we will be grappling with these vicious crises for years to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Kohl in introducing the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve our nation's schools. I am pleased to be working with the senior Senator from Wisconsin, who has been a longtime leader in this area. As far back as 1999, he has sponsored legislation to support breakfast programs, and he has continued his support through his work on the Agriculture Appropriations Committee since then.

One often overlooked part of student classroom performance is nutrition and hunger, which can have a tremendous impact on students. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide healthier food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack and Farm- to-Cafeteria programs.

I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. When I talk to my colleagues and constituents about our proposal and the importance of breakfast and learning, it is not a hard sell. People understand immediately why this issue matters.

Unfortunately, too many children go hungry and too many parents have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast, even if they get the help of reduced price meals.

The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class, and I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, last

year in my home State of Wisconsin, with the support of Senator Kohl, the Milwaukee Public Schools worked with the Hunger Task Force to implement universal school breakfast programs in more than 60 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents.

We are set to debate the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, later this year. NCLB was the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, of 1965. NCLB set the important goal of closing the achievement gap that exists in our nation's schools. I disagree with some of the methods that NCLB employs, including relying primarily on high-stakes standardized tests to measure students and schools, but I strongly agree that the achievement gap needs to be closed. The latest scores from the National Assessment on Educational Progress NAEP were released last week and the scores show we have a very long way to go before we close that achievement gap in many States, including in my State of Wisconsin.

There are a variety of education reforms that need to be pursued at the federal, state, and local level in order to close the achievement gap. One step Congress can take is to support programs to comprehensively address the needs of children, including their nutrition, health, and social needs. Our Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is legislation that is designed to help address some of those needs. Too many students in some of our nation's most disadvantaged schools walk into school in the morning hungry, or eat junk food for their breakfast. By working to provide these students with access to a nutritious breakfast, we are telling these students that we value them and that we want to help them achieve all that they can in school. Much more needs to be done to address other needs of our students, but this bill is a step in the right direction.

Our legislation would target the schools most in need, those with 65 percent more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program, with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers to creating a universal school breakfast program. In fiscal year 2006, 10 million more students participated in free and reduced price lunch than breakfast. This disparity is troubling to me and many others.

Our bill would work with existing meal programs, not replace them. Provision 2 of Section 11(a)(l) of the National School Lunch Act allows schools to establish their free and reduced meal rates for a 4 year period if they serve all meals at no charge. The combination of not having to collect free and reduced price information from students annually, and not having to collect daily meal money from students, results in significant administrative savings. While schools participating under Provision 2 must cover the lost revenue from the reduced and full price meal costs, for the high-needs schools such as those targeted by this program, the typically higher participation rate also means the school can benefit from some economies of scale and receive a better price for the food. The grants this bill would provide would help schools make the initial investments needed to establish a universal breakfast program and make up for the lost revenue.

Some universal breakfast programs, like the one I mentioned in Milwaukee, have demonstrated that universal free breakfast programs create an economy of scale that actually makes the cost per student lower. The Milwaukee program served breakfast in the classroom, which, according to teachers and others involved, further improved the economy of the program, as well as the positive impact of breakfast on students' attention.

While our bill has some preferences, including a target for the poorest schools, it is important to note that it has tremendous flexibility for the states and school districts. Schools will be able to tailor their universal breakfast programs to the needs of their own students. It also gives schools the option of purchasing locally grown foods and linking with local farmers, which provide excellent opportunities for nutrition lessons and can even be incorporated into other subjects such as science and math.

This bill is just a start; much more should be done to increase participation in breakfast programs and provide schools with the ability and resources to design programs that address the needs of their students and communities. Our bill does not intend to replace broader efforts, but rather to provide some immediate assistance for the schools most in need. Furthermore, by including a reporting requirement and encouraging researchers to study the effectiveness of the funded programs in improving student learning, this legislation would provide useful evidence about the need for broader investment and how to ensure those resources are best spent.

I would like to thank Senators Tester, Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, Obama, Bingaman, and Domenici for their support for this legislation. The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is also supported by the Hunger Task Force, Community Food Security Coalition, the School Social Work Association of America and the Wisconsin School Social Workers Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide breakfast to more in-need students.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Kohl in introducing the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part of my continued efforts to improve our nation's schools. I am pleased to be working with the senior Senator from Wisconsin, who has been a longtime leader in this area. As far back as 1999, he has sponsored legislation to support breakfast programs, and he has continued his support through his work on the Agriculture Appropriations Committee since then.

One often overlooked part of student classroom performance is nutrition and hunger, which can have a tremendous impact on students. I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide healthier food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack and Farm- to-Cafeteria programs.

I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. When I talk to my colleagues and constituents about our proposal and the importance of breakfast and learning, it is not a hard sell. People understand immediately why this issue matters.

Unfortunately, too many children go hungry and too many parents have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast, even if they get the help of reduced price meals.

The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform better in school and on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to the class, and I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, last

year in my home State of Wisconsin, with the support of Senator Kohl, the Milwaukee Public Schools worked with the Hunger Task Force to implement universal school breakfast programs in more than 60 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents.

We are set to debate the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, later this year. NCLB was the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, of 1965. NCLB set the important goal of closing the achievement gap that exists in our nation's schools. I disagree with some of the methods that NCLB employs, including relying primarily on high-stakes standardized tests to measure students and schools, but I strongly agree that the achievement gap needs to be closed. The latest scores from the National Assessment on Educational Progress NAEP were released last week and the scores show we have a very long way to go before we close that achievement gap in many States, including in my State of Wisconsin.

There are a variety of education reforms that need to be pursued at the federal, state, and local level in order to close the achievement gap. One step Congress can take is to support programs to comprehensively address the needs of children, including their nutrition, health, and social needs. Our Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is legislation that is designed to help address some of those needs. Too many students in some of our nation's most disadvantaged schools walk into school in the morning hungry, or eat junk food for their breakfast. By working to provide these students with access to a nutritious breakfast, we are telling these students that we value them and that we want to help them achieve all that they can in school. Much more needs to be done to address other needs of our students, but this bill is a step in the right direction.

Our legislation would target the schools most in need, those with 65 percent more of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program, with the funds necessary to implement a universal free breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways, aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers to creating a universal school breakfast program. In fiscal year 2006, 10 million more students participated in free and reduced price lunch than breakfast. This disparity is troubling to me and many others.

Our bill would work with existing meal programs, not replace them. Provision 2 of Section 11(a)(l) of the National School Lunch Act allows schools to establish their free and reduced meal rates for a 4 year period if they serve all meals at no charge. The combination of not having to collect free and reduced price information from students annually, and not having to collect daily meal money from students, results in significant administrative savings. While schools participating under Provision 2 must cover the lost revenue from the reduced and full price meal costs, for the high-needs schools such as those targeted by this program, the typically higher participation rate also means the school can benefit from some economies of scale and receive a better price for the food. The grants this bill would provide would help schools make the initial investments needed to establish a universal breakfast program and make up for the lost revenue.

Some universal breakfast programs, like the one I mentioned in Milwaukee, have demonstrated that universal free breakfast programs create an economy of scale that actually makes the cost per student lower. The Milwaukee program served breakfast in the classroom, which, according to teachers and others involved, further improved the economy of the program, as well as the positive impact of breakfast on students' attention.

While our bill has some preferences, including a target for the poorest schools, it is important to note that it has tremendous flexibility for the states and school districts. Schools will be able to tailor their universal breakfast programs to the needs of their own students. It also gives schools the option of purchasing locally grown foods and linking with local farmers, which provide excellent opportunities for nutrition lessons and can even be incorporated into other subjects such as science and math.

This bill is just a start; much more should be done to increase participation in breakfast programs and provide schools with the ability and resources to design programs that address the needs of their students and communities. Our bill does not intend to replace broader efforts, but rather to provide some immediate assistance for the schools most in need. Furthermore, by including a reporting requirement and encouraging researchers to study the effectiveness of the funded programs in improving student learning, this legislation would provide useful evidence about the need for broader investment and how to ensure those resources are best spent.

I would like to thank Senators Tester, Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, Obama, Bingaman, and Domenici for their support for this legislation. The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act is also supported by the Hunger Task Force, Community Food Security Coalition, the School Social Work Association of America and the Wisconsin School Social Workers Association. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide breakfast to more in-need students.

Mr. President, without objection, I yield briefly to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, the amendment is very similar to the previous Feingold amendment relating to the Iraq war and using the power of the purse to terminate our involvement there. I believe there will be a unanimous consent request made to have an hour on each side for the debate.

Mr. President, I have no objection to deferring our consideration of the amendment so the Senator from Montana can speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment and call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am offering this amendment with Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Senators Leahy, Dodd, Kerry, Boxer, Whitehouse, Kennedy, Harkin, Sanders, Wyden, Schumer, and Durbin. I appreciate the support of the Senate Democratic leadership and so many of my colleagues for this amendment.

The amendment we are offering is simple--it would require the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008, with narrow exceptions. It is very similar to the amendment that we offered last month, so I won't take up too much time explaining what it does. I do, however, want to explain why the Senate should take up this issue again, so soon after we last considered it.

Some of my colleagues like to call Iraq ``the central front in the war on terror.'' But they don't spend as much time talking about the other areas where al-Qaida and its affiliates are operating, nor do they recognize that the administration's singular focus on Iraq is depriving those other areas of the attention and resources they need.

Take Afghanistan, for example, where an already weak government is grappling with a resurgence of the Taliban and rising instability. Reports indicate that there has been a 20 to 25 percent increase in Taliban attacks in recent months. Because this administration seems blind to the threats to our national security outside of Iraq, Afghanistan has been relegated to the back burner for far too long, at grave cost to our national security.

Last week, President Bush met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in New York City, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly opening session, but according to news reports he made no mention of the Taliban's resurgence. That's a pretty big omission. After all, it was the Taliban that supported bin Laden and provided him and his associates with sanctuary in the run up to 9/11, and shortly thereafter. President Bush was right to take us to war in Afghanistan. That was a war focused on those who attacked us on 9/11 and on the government that provided a safe haven to al-Qaida.

But with the 2003 invasion of Iraq we have been significantly distracted and the war in Afghanistan, once the main show, now has a supporting role, at best. As a result, al-Qaida has protected, rebuilt, and strengthened its safe haven in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. You only have to look at the front page of today's Washington Post--and see the headline ``Pakistan Losing Fight Against Taliban and Al-Qaeda''--to realize how dangerous this situation is to our national security.

We have taken our eye off the ball, Mr. President. The war in Iraq has shifted our focus and our resources. We are focused on al-Qaida in Iraq--an al Qaida affiliate that didn't exist before the war--rather than on al-Qaida's safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In Afghanistan, the absence of adequate security and development has led to increased disillusionment with the national government, which has in turn resulted in increasing civilian support for the re-emerging Taliban. It goes without question that the vast majority of Afghans have no desire to return to the Taliban era, but the inability of President Karzai to extend control outside the capital has meant that much of the Afghan population suffers from pervasive fear and instability. We may see Afghanistan once again engulfed by chaos, lawlessness, and possibly extremism.

As long as Bin Laden and his reconstituted al-Qaida leadership remain at large, Afghanistan's future can not be separated from our own national security. But with our myopic focus on Iraq--and so many of our brave troops stuck in the middle of that misguided war--we have lost sight of our priorities. Mr. President, we are attempting to help stabilize and develop Afghanistan ``on the cheap,'' and that just isn't good enough.

Afghanistan is teetering on the edge. Pockets of insecurity across the nation are becoming strongholds for anti-government insurgents who are, in turn, exploiting the local population to support their anti- western agenda. This problem is compounded by the dearth of sufficient international ground troops, which has coincided with coalition forces using increased air attacks

against insurgents. Those attacks carry a greater risk of civilian casualties, undermining our support among the populace. Although the majority of attacks on civilians are perpetrated by the Taliban and other insurgent groups, the lack of ground troops is seriously undermining our efforts in Afghanistan.

We also face instability and insurgent attacks in Iraq, of course. But unlike in Iraq, where 165,000 U.S. troops are stuck in a civil war that requires a political solution, in Afghanistan we are fighting with far fewer troops to protect and advance the political progress of the Afghan people. Our troops accomplished their mission in Iraq when they took out Saddam Hussein--maintaining a massive troop presence in that country just fuels anti-Americanism and serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists. We have not accomplished our mission in Afghanistan-- denying a safe haven to those who aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks.

Instead of seeing the big picture--instead of placing Iraq in the context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless enemy, al Qaida--this administration persists in the tragic mistake it made over 4 years ago when it took the country to war in Iraq. That war has led to the deaths of more than 3,700 Americans and perhaps as many as 1 million Iraqi civilians. It has deepened instability throughout the Middle East, and it has undermined the international support and cooperation we need to defeat al-Qaida.

Mr. President, the war in Iraq is not making us safer; it is making us more vulnerable. It is stretching our military to the breaking point and inflaming tensions and anti-American sentiment in an important and volatile part of the world. It is playing into the hands of our enemies, as even the State Department recognized when it said that the war in Iraq is ``used as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring countries.''

It would be easy to put all the blame on the administration, but Congress is complicit, too. With the Defense appropriations bill before us, we have another chance to end our complicity and reverse this President's intractable policy. Finally, we can listen to the American people, save American lives, and protect our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq.

I understand that some Members of Congress do not want to have this debate now, on this bill. They would rather keep the Defense Appropriations bill ``clean'' and postpone Iraq debates until we take up the supplemental. I respect their views, but I disagree. Like it or not, this is, in part, an Iraq bill. It isn't possible to completely separate war funding from regular DOD funding, Mr. President. In fact, this bill pays for a significant part of our operations in Iraq. It is therefore appropriate and responsible that we attach language bringing that war to a close.

That is why I am again offering an amendment with Majority Leader Harry Reid to effectively bring the war to an end. Our amendment is very similar to the amendment we introduced last month to the Defense authorization bill. It would require the President to safely redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. At that point, with our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with narrow exceptions for troops to do the following: provide security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure; train the Iraqi Security Forces, ISF, and conduct operations against al-Qaida and affiliates.

In order to make clear that our legislation will protect the troops, we have specified that nothing in this amendment will prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they need ``to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.'' I hope we won't be hearing any more phony arguments about troops on the battlefield somehow not getting the supplies they need. It is false, phony, and it is a red herring and should not be used on the floor of the Senate.

Passing this amendment will not deny our troops a single bullet or meal.

It will simply result in their safe redeployment out of Iraq. When I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year on Congress's power of the purse, Walter Dellinger of Duke Law School testified about my proposal. This is what he said:

There would not be one penny less for salary for the

troops. There would not be one penny less for benefits of the

troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or

ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or

support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other

areas where the Armed Forces are utilized.

The Feingold-Reid amendment is a safe and responsible use of Congress's power of the purse. It is the path we took in 1993 when, in the aftermath of the ``Black Hawk Down'' incident, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill that set a funding deadline for U.S. troop deployments in Somalia. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment, sponsored by the current senior Senator from West Virginia. And many of these Senators are still in this body, such as Senators Cochran, Domenici, Hutchison, Lugar, McConnell, Specter, Stevens, and Warner. They recognized that this was an entirely appropriate way to safely redeploy U.S. troops. With their support, the amendment was enacted, and the troops came home from Somalia before that deadline.

In order to avoid a rule XVI point of order, this amendment is slightly different than the version we offered last month. The new amendment only covers funds in the 2008 Defense appropriations bill, and it omits the first two sections of the old Feingold-Reid amendment which required the President to transition the mission and to begin redeployment within 90 days. In addition, the exceptions for operations against al-Qaida and for training the ISF are less detailed and restrictive than they were before. But the intent is the same. After consulting with the parliamentarians, we have made these changes to ensure we are not blocked from getting a vote. The heart of Feingold- Reid--the requirement that our troops be redeployed by June 30, 2008-- remains.

Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their right. But I hope they will not do so on the grounds that we should keep the Defense appropriations bill clean, or that a brief debate and vote on this amendment will somehow delay that bill. Passing a defense spending bill without even discussing the most important national defense and national security issue facing our country is simply irresponsible. As long as our troops are fighting and dying for a war that doesn't make sense, as long as the American people are calling out for an end to this tragedy, as long as the administration and its supporters press ahead with their misguided strategy, we have a responsibility to debate and vote on this issue again and again and again.

By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can refocus on our top national security priority--waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its affiliates. We can refocus on developing a comprehensive strategy for dealing with deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan that link together the policies and programs needed to establish a viable state there, and we can focus on the other areas around the world, from North Africa to Southeast Asia, where al-Qaida and its affiliates are operating.

The war in Iraq is the wrong war. It is overstretching our military and undermining our national security. It is time for the war to end. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, let me say quickly, before I turn to the Senator from Connecticut, how much I admire the Senator from Mississippi. We have worked closely. His response to our amendment is about the need to move on and pass the Defense appropriations bill. Obviously, this is not getting in the way of doing that. We immediately agreed to a 2-hour time agreement. This is perfectly reasonable in light of the fact that this is the biggest military situation we have had in decades in this country. So it seems like a very minor thing to spend 2 hours on this amendment. We have a time agreement, so in no way will this be preventing us from moving forward to passage of the Defense appropriations bill.

I now turn to my colleague and very strong supporter on these efforts, the Senator from Connecticut, and yield him 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Connecticut for his very strong voice in support of our amendment and in support of ending this mistaken war. I really do appreciate it, and I thank him for his help on this and hope for a strong showing on the floor of the Senate on this.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally charged on both sides.

Mr. President, I assume this will not come out of the time we have on this side.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we go back to the quorum call and, when we do so, the time be evenly divided between the sides.

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

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to our cosponsor on this issue, Senator Durbin.

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

How much time remains on each side?

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time I have be reserved for further debate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for engaging in debate in the respectful and substantive way he has done so. We agree on many issues but not on this one.

Let me, in the very brief time I have, respond to a couple things he said. First, just an observation. He asked: How, under my amendment, are we going to determine who al-Qaida is in Iraq?

Well, I guess I ask the question: How are we doing it now? Presumably, we are identifying our enemy and attacking them. We are not just attacking them indiscriminately.

He said: How in the world are we going to determine who al-Qaida is? I certainly hope we have some kind of a way to do that now. I am very puzzled by that argument.

But the broader point of this issue is this: The heart of the argument of the Senator from South Carolina is that somehow having a timetable and withdrawing from this mistake in Iraq is going to help both al-Qaida and Iran. I would say it is just the opposite. The situation in Iraq is ideal for al-Qaida. It is sapping our military strength in Iraq and throughout the world at the same time that al- Qaida, according to our own public National Intelligence Estimate, is reinvigorating itself in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and around the world. So it is just the opposite.

Continuing this involvement in Iraq that we have right now completely plays into the hands of those who attacked us on 9/11.

Now, the Senator from South Carolina poses the notion that somehow Iran would be pleased to see us leave Iraq. Well, I am sure that is true eventually. But at this point it is actually ideal for Iran. They are expanding their influence, and we are taking the hits. We are taking the hits in terms of casualties, we are taking the hits financially, and they do not have to go in and invade or try to control Iraq.

So actually it is the status quo that benefits Iran. It is perfect for them, and they are showing it every day. So it is just the opposite. Two of the most problematic enemies we have--Iran, in the form of a country that is very difficult for us, and al-Qaida, in terms of a terrorist organization--they benefit from our mistake of indefinitely continuing this involvement in Iraq. I believe that is the national security analysis that is most appropriate. That is why I offer this amendment in the spirit of national security, not simply in the spirit of trying to bring our troops out of Iraq.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and ask unanimous consent, again, that my time be reserved.

Mr. President, I just want to say to the Senator from Hawaii, through the Chair, how much I respect him. I understand why he has to take this approach on this particular attempt to offer this amendment. The fact is, this great Senator, this war hero, has supported us on this amendment in other contexts. He is in agreement with us.

He has a responsibility on this bill that I respect. But what greater statement that we are on the right track in terms of wanting to have a reasonable withdrawal from Iraq than the fact that this great Senator has been supportive. So I thank him. Of course, I hope people will vote with me on this amendment, but I completely understand his reason for taking this approach on this particular bill.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, many of my colleagues have expressed serious concerns about the war in Iraq. I would say now is the time to put those concerns into action. We have the power and the responsibility to end a war that is hurting our troops, our fiscal situation, and our national security.

By voting for the Feingold-Reid amendment today, we can safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. I understand the bill's managers would rather not address Iraq on their bill. That is their decision. But I note this amendment has the strong support of the Democratic leadership. So I thank Senator Reid for his support and leadership.

I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold-Reid amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I voted against the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill because it does nothing to bring to a close the open-ended military mission in Iraq, which has overburdened our military, weakened our national security, and cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers.

There were provisions in the bill which I strongly supported, including language I proposed that will make it easier for family members and other trusted adults to take leave to care for children and dependents when their loved ones are deployed. I am also pleased that the Senate approved two amendments I cosponsored. One was an amendment by Senator Webb creating a Commission on Wartime Contracting to examine waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the misuse of force by private security contractors. The other was an amendment by Senator Sanders to ensure that money allocated for research on gulf war illnesses is spent wisely.

But on balance, I could not vote for a bill that defies the will of so many Wisconsinites and so many Americans by allowing the President to continue one of the greatest and most tragic foreign policy blunders in the history of our Nation.

Mr. President, today we are voting on the reauthorization of a program that has wide support in our country and that has reduced the number of uninsured children nationwide by over 6 million. In fact, CHIP has helped lower the rate of noninsurance among low-income children by one-third since its enactment in 1997. That is a huge accomplishment, and has helped address a problem in our country that is unacceptable--the millions of uninsured families.

In my home State of Wisconsin, CHIP, known as BadgerCare, provides health insurance for over 67,000 families. Wisconsin has done an incredible job of covering uninsured children as well as their parents, and the positive effects of this program are felt at schools, in the workforce, and at home. This bill helps support Wisconsin's efforts and provides low-income families in my State with better access to preventive care, primary care, and affordable care. The end result is healthier families. BadgerCare is vital to the well-being of many families in Wisconsin and I am very pleased that this bill supports the program in my State, including Wisconsin's choice to cover parents of CHIP and Medicaid children.

We know from numerous reports that when we cover parents, we bring more uninsured children into the program as well. States like Wisconsin have proven time and again that covering parents means covering more kids. I worked hard with my colleagues and the Senate Finance Committee to make sure that Wisconsin could keep families in the CHIP program, and I am very pleased that those efforts have paid off.

This legislation is not perfect. I would like to be voting on a more expansive package today that would offer health care access to more children and families. I am very disappointed that this legislation does not include language that would allow access to the program for legal immigrants. Unfortunately, it appears that, because of Republican opposition to this policy, legal immigrant children will continue to have to wait five years before they become eligible for CHIP and Medicaid. I will do my best to help change the discriminatory policy in the future.

Despite the flaws in this legislation, the CHIP reauthorization bill marks an important step forward in getting coverage to those who need it. I will support this bill's final passage, and I hope the President will reconsider his ill-advised decision to veto it. I look forward to the day that everyone in our country has access to the basic right of health care.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act. This is a bipartisan agreement to do what is right for our nation's children. There are few more important issues facing the senate than the health and well-being of our Nation's youth. The vote to pass this legislation is a vote for children.

As the father of two young daughters, I keenly understand how important it is to know that if one of them gets sick they have the health insurance coverage that will provide for them. For millions of parents, every slight sniffle or aching tooth could mean the difference between paying the rent and paying for medical care. Today we have an opportunity to help give those parents peace of mind about their children's health.

It is our national shame that 9 million children wake up every day lacking any form of health insurance. Every day, this means millions of regular checkups are sidelined, dental exams go unscheduled, and early diagnoses of chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes are postponed. For families, such delays set the stage for children to grow up underperforming in school, developing preventable or treatable conditions, or worse, permanent disability or even premature death.

The lack of health insurance causes more than poor health outcomes. Access to affordable health care is essential to alleviating child poverty. Low-income families without insurance often get stuck in an endless cycle of medical debt, a primary cause of bankruptcy filings in this country. Parents already struggling to make ends meet

should not have to choose between providing their children needed medications and putting a roof over their heads or food on their table.

I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for working so hard with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to put together a bill that will benefit the lives of millions of children and their families. Their leadership over the years, and that of Senators Hatch, Rockefeller, Kennedy and many others, helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and reduce the number of uninsured children by one-third. Their persistence now to expand this bill in the face of considerable opposition shows their commitment to children's health. This bill is a tremendous investment in the health and future of our children.

Specifically, the bill continues providing coverage for 6.6 million children currently enrolled in CHIP and provides coverage for 3.1 million children who are currently uninsured today. It gives States the resources they need to keep up with the growing numbers of uninsured children. It provides tools and incentives to cover children who have fallen through the cracks of current programs. And it will prevent the President from unfairly and shortsightedly limiting States' efforts to expand their CHIP programs to cover even more children. All together these efforts will reduce the number of uninsured children by one third over the next 5 years.

In my own State of Connecticut, our CHIP program, commonly known as HUSKY B, has brought affordable health insurance to more than 130,000 children in working families since its inception in 1998. H.R. 976 is essential to States like Connecticut so that they may continue to operate programs like HUSKY B and build on their proven success to insure even more children.

I am additionally very pleased that my Support for Injured Servicemembers Act amendment was included in the final SCHIP bill. This amendment provides up to 6 months of Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, leave for family members of military personnel who suffer from a combat-related injury or illness. FMLA currently allows three months of unpaid leave. Fourteen years ago, FMLA declared the principle that workers should never be forced to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love.

If ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to speed their recoveries but most of all, they deserve the care of their closest loved ones. That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured Servicemembers Act.

Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort through the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors. It's not surprising that the Commission found that family members play a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly inspiring. According to the Commission's report, 33 percent of active duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend relocated for extended periods of time to help their recoveries. It also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. Last week in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, we heard from one of those families and there are thousands more to be heard. The House is moving forward with companion legislation and I am grateful to my colleagues Congresswoman Woolsey and Chairman Miller and their cosponsors.

I am pleased that Senator Clinton is the lead cosponsor of my amendment. In addition, I am pleased that Senators Dole, Graham, Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman, Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this amendment. I thank Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for accepting this important amendment and appreciate the support of all of my colleagues in this effort.

I am troubled by the comments by President Bush and members of his administration about this bill. This legislation is vital to the health and well being of our children. The CHIP program is a model of success and this bill provides sustainable and predictable health care coverage for low income children regardless of their health status. It represents the hard work and agreement of an overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the aisle. It is a testament to how important issues like children's health care can be addressed in a bipartisan manner by a united Congress. The President's policy of block and delay would mean Connecticut and other States would have to take away existing health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children when they should be covering more kids.

But despite the bipartisan agreement of this Congress, the President threatens to veto this legislation. If he does, all Americans will know whether the President stands for children or would rather stand in the way of children's access to critically needed health care.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and I urge President Bush to do what is right and sign it into law.

Mr. President, today we are again forced to consider legislation to raise the Nation's debt limit. It is obvious to anyone that we are here because of the grossly reckless fiscal policies that have been advanced by the administration and Congress for nearly 6 years.

Over those 6 years we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs-- balancing the Nation's fiscal books. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in the 10 years thereafter, the Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. Nearly 6 years later, we are staring at almost a mirror image of that 10-year, $5 trillion surplus, except that instead of healthy surpluses, under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing immense deficits and mounting debt.

We absolutely cannot afford to continue to run up these massive deficits. Doing so causes the Government to use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. Every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits.

But inside this dark cloud of dismal fiscal news there is a silver lining; namely, the restoration of the so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' budget rule, known as pay-go, as part of the budget resolution we adopted this year. That rule was central to the ability of the Congress to balance the Federal budget in the 1990s, and the return of that commonsense discipline gives us a better chance to clean up the fiscal disaster the current administration created. Unlike the last time Congress had to raise the debt limit for this administration, we now have pay-go back in place.

In some ways, today's vote to raise the debt limit ratifies the actions taken by the administration and Congress to stick future generations with an immense credit card bill. Had we not restored the pay-go rule recently, I may well have decided not to support this measure.

Fortunately, pay-go has been reinstated, and we will be better able to return to the path of fiscal responsibility we abandoned a few years ago. And because of that, I will support this measure, made necessary by the profligate policies of President Bush, and egregiously aided and abetted by the last three Congresses.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are about to begin the 2008 fiscal year without having enacted any of the appropriations bills for that year. I am even more disappointed that we are about to vote on a continuing resolution that provides tens of billions of dollars to continue the misguided war in Iraq but does not include any language to bring that war to a close. We need to keep the Federal Government operating and make sure our brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we should not be giving the President a blank check to continue a war that is hurting our national security. For that reason, I will be voting against this resolution.

Mr. President, I support many of the priorities in this bill, and I do not think the Senate should extend debate on it indefinitely. But, if we invoke cloture on the bill, as it currently stands, we will be ensuring that it contains no language to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to a close. That would be a mistake. The war in Iraq is taking a tremendous toll on our servicemembers and our military preparedness--not to mention our national security and our pocketbook. It is irresponsible for Congress to pass legislation authorizing the activities of the Department of Defense that fails to bring our troops home and this war to an end.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the threat posed by Iran, but I voted against the amendment offered by Senators Kyl and Lieberman because it could be interpreted as an authorization to keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely to police the Iraqi civil war and engage in a proxy war with Iran. Maintaining a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq is undermining our ability to deter Iran as it increases its influence in Iraq, becomes bolder in its nuclear aspirations, and continues to support Hezbollah. The administration needs to end its myopic focus on Iraq and develop comprehensive, effective strategies for dealing with Iran and the other serious challenges we face around the world.

Mr. President, I voted against Senator Biden's amendment because, while we should support a comprehensive political settlement in Iraq, the U.S. Government shouldn't tell the Iraqi people how to run their country.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007, is similar to legislation I introduced in the last two Congresses and will solve the problem for today and into the future.

Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth

and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and lead the Nation in cheese production with over 25 percent or 2.5 billion pounds of cheese a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of butter, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hardworking farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist.

One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years.

Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies.

Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers, Social Security Act Sec. 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a), have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year; making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible. With inflation, there is no chance of the amount needed to earn a QC dropping on its own and it has steadily risen since 2001, so legislation is needed to fix this unanticipated erosion in this option for farmers and the self-employed.

Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs.

Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again.

Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It could even provide a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run.

Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law.

When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address an injustice in the Tax Code that is threatening family farmers and other self-employed individuals. Some of my constituents, primarily Wisconsin farmers, have requested Congress's assistance to correct the Tax Code so they can protect their families. The legislation I introduce today, the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007, is similar to legislation I introduced in the last two Congresses and will solve the problem for today and into the future.

Farming is vital to Wisconsin. Wisconsin's agricultural industry plays a large and important role in the growth

and prosperity of the entire State. Wisconsin's status as ``America's Dairyland'' is central to our State's agriculture industry. Wisconsin's dairy farmers produce approximately 23 billion pounds of milk and lead the Nation in cheese production with over 25 percent or 2.5 billion pounds of cheese a year. But Wisconsin's farmers produce much more than milk; they also are national leaders in the production of butter, potatoes, ginseng, cranberries, various processing vegetables, and many organic foods. So when the hardworking farmers of Wisconsin need help, I will do all I can to assist.

One concern that I have heard from Wisconsin farmers is that the Tax Code can limit their eligibility for social safety net programs, including old age, survivors, and disability insurance, OASDI, under Social Security and the hospital insurance HI part of Medicare. These programs are paid for through payroll taxes on workers and through the self-employment tax on the income of self-employed individuals. To be eligible for OSADI and HI benefits an individual must be fully insured and must have earned a minimum amount of income in the years immediately preceding the need for coverage. Every year, the Social Security Administration, SSA, sets the amount of earned income that individuals must pay taxes on to earn quarters of coverage, QCs, and maintain their benefits. An individual's eligibility requirements depend upon the age at which death or disability occurs, but for workers over 31 years of age, they must have earned at least 20 QCs within the past 10 years.

Self-employed individuals can have highly variable income, and, particularly for farmers who are at the whim of Mother Nature, not every year is a good year. During lean years, individuals may not earn enough income to maintain adequate coverage under OASDI and HI. Therefore, the Tax Code provides options to allow self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for benefits. These options allow individuals to choose to pay taxes based on $1,600 of earned income, thus allowing self-employed entrepreneurs to maintain the same Federal protections even when their income varies.

Unfortunately, both the options for farmers and nonfarmers, Social Security Act Sec. 211(a) and I.R.C. Sec. 1402(a), have not kept pace with inflation, and they no longer provide security to families across the country. Decades ago, self-employment income of $1,600 earned an individual four QCs under SSA's calculations. In 2001, the amount needed to earn a QC rose to $830 of earned income, so individuals electing the optional methods were only able to earn one QC per year; making it much harder for them to remain eligible for benefits because they must average 2 QCs per year to be eligible. With inflation, there is no chance of the amount needed to earn a QC dropping on its own and it has steadily risen since 2001, so legislation is needed to fix this unanticipated erosion in this option for farmers and the self-employed.

Congress's failure to address this problem threatens the ability of self-employed individuals to maintain eligibility for OASDI and HI. I have heard from several of my constituent who want these options to be fixed so they can make sure their families will be taken care of in the event that something unforeseen occurs.

Therefore, I am introducing the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007 in order to provide farmers and self-employed individuals with a fair choice. Under this bill, they will continue to be able to elect the optional method if they so choose. When individuals do elect the option, this legislation provides an update to the Tax Code so farmers and self-employed individuals can retain full eligibility for OASDI and HI benefits. It indexes the optional income levels to SSA's QC calculations, allowing these farmers and self-employed individuals to claim enough earned income to qualify for four OCs annually. In addition, by linking the earned income level to SSA's requirements for QCs, the bill will ensure that the amount of income deemed to be earned under the optional methods will not need to be adjusted by Congress again.

Along with providing security to self-employed individuals and farmers across the country, this solution is fiscally responsible. It could even provide a short run increase in U.S. Treasury revenues while having negligible impact upon the Social Security trust fund in the long run.

Let me take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to address this problem in the 107th Congress. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he included similar legislative language in the chairman's mark for the Small Business and Farm Economic Recovery Act of 2002. The Senate Finance Committee held a markup on the legislation on September 19, 2002, but the changes to the optional methods did not become law.

When incomes fall, the Tax Code provides optional methods for calculating net earnings to ensure that farmers and self-employed individuals maintain eligibility for social safety net programs. When these provisions were developed, Congress intended self-employed individuals to have the ability to pay enough to earn a full 4 QCs. Unfortunately the Tax Code has not kept up with the times and due to inflation many farmers are losing eligibility for some of Social Security's programs. Congress needs to provide security to farm families and other self-employed individuals. I urge my colleagues to support the Farmer Tax Fairness Act of 2007.

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