Floor Statements

Mr. President, if I could I wish to make one comment about the issue the Senator raised about Admiral McConnell.

The last time we checked, there are 100 Senators elected to enact public policy. The notion that somebody who was confirmed by the Senate to execute these policies is a person who should be able to veto what we do here on the basis that he has a distinguished background is somewhat questionable.

That discounts the qualities of every Member of this body, that discounts the qualities of every hard-working staff member who knows the law and has good ideas about what this public policy should be.

I voted for Admiral McConnell. I respect him. The day we start deferring to someone who is not an elected Member of this body, or hiding behind him when you do not have the arguments to justify your position is a sad day for the Senate. We make the policy, not the executive branch.

Let me respond to what the Senator from Connecticut indicated. In times of war, we don't give up our responsibility in the Senate to review and make laws. The notion that we simply defer this to the Director of National Intelligence and whatever he says is an abdication of our duties, especially in times of war. In fact, let's remember why this is here. The Senator regrets we are debating this and some of these very important matters that are generally kept secret are being discussed. I agree. But why are they secret? Because the administration was conducting an illegal wiretapping program and somebody inappropriately blew the lid on that. That wasn't the doing of anybody in this body. That was due to the incompetence and inappropriate conduct of this administration in the first place. That is why we are here with this kind of debate, not because of anything anybody did here.

By the way, this horrible conflict we have with those who attacked us on 9/11, this conflict is something we all

agree on. Not a single Senator doesn't think we should be able to get at these foreign calls. Not a single Senator doesn't want to give the admiral what he has asked for that is reasonable. We simply want protection for the civil liberties of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Let's be sure what this debate is about. I thank the majority leader and Senator Rockefeller, Senator Levin, Senator Leahy, and especially Senator Whitehouse, who put tremendous effort into this, for trying to make this as good as possible.

I am going to vote for the Rockefeller-Leahy-Levin bill. I am concerned we are moving too fast and that we have not necessarily come up with the right answer to the problem we all recognize exists. But I am prepared to vote for this because I think it is at least a reasonable approach for addressing legitimate problems without unduly compromising the civil liberties of Americans. I do so with great reluctance, with the expectation that this is an experiment with a short expiration date, an experiment we can assess and modify as we move forward.

But we cannot pass the Bond-McConnell proposal. This bill would go way too far. It would permit the Government, with no court oversight whatsoever, to intercept the communications of calls to and from the United States, as long as it is directed at a person--any person, not a suspected terrorist--reasonably believed to be outside the United States. That means giving free rein to the Government to wiretap anyone, including U.S. citizens who live overseas, servicemembers such as those in Iraq, journalists reporting from overseas, or even Members of Congress who are overseas and can call home to the United States. This is without any court oversight whatsoever. That is unacceptable.

It goes far beyond the identified problem of foreign-to-foreign communications that we all agree on. It goes far, far beyond the public descriptions of the President's warrantless wiretapping program. What little judicial review the bill does provide is essentially meaningless. The FISA Court would decide only whether the Government certification that it has put reasonable procedures in place to direct surveillance against people reasonably believed to be abroad is ``clearly erroneous.'' That is basically a standard that is nothing more than a rubberstamp. It ignores the real issue which is protecting the rights of Americans who may be calling or e-mailing friends, family, or business partners overseas and who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Let me point out that the so-called court review in the Bond bill will never happen, because the court only has to rule within 180 days of enactment, and there is now a sunset on the bill after 180 days.

A 6-month sunset does not justify voting for this bad version of the bill. We can't just suspend the Constitution for 6 months.

I strongly oppose the Bond bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, last night, the Senate was able to successfully pass the reauthorization of a popular program that has reduced the number of uninsured children in our country by over 6 million. The Children's Health Insurance Program has helped lower the rate of uninsured 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 families lacking insurance. Moreover, while the bill has a pricetag of roughly $40 billion over 10 years, it is fully offset and would cover over 3 million more children. This program, according to CBO and numerous economists, is the most efficient method of getting health care insurance to low-income kids and parents, and that means CHIP provides the best coverage available for low-income families.

In my home state of Wisconsin, CHIP is known as BadgerCare and it provides health insurance for over 67,000 families. My State has done an incredible job of covering uninsured families, 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 children 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.

The ability to cover adults in CHIP continues to be a priority for States like Wisconsin. Many States extend coverage to low-income adults and parents of children enrolled in SCHIP. This coverage has been given prior Federal approval--including in the Bush administration--and has significantly lowered the rate of uninsurance in our states. Wisconsin provides family-based coverage, which is an important determinant in children's coverage and use of services.

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 this time and again. No child is left off the rolls because a parent is covered. Covering parents means covering more kids--bottom line. Wisconsin chose to cover parents because research shows that it is the best way to bring low-income children into BadgerCare. This choice was wisely supported by this administration this May as CMS approved parent coverage in BadgerCare for another 3 years. Despite all the evidence and the widespread support for this policy, a number of Senators wanted to remove all adults from the CHIP program.

I worked with the Senate Finance Committee and a number of other Senators who represent States like Wisconsin on an agreement that will allow our States to keep families in the CHIP program. I am grateful to my colleagues Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller for working with me to help Wisconsin keep parents on the rolls while also bringing additional tens of millions of dollars to the State. The agreement reflected in this bill ensures that Wisconsin will not have to drop a single person from the insurance rolls, and will even be able to expand coverage to more people in the State. I am happy to support this agreement regarding parents today.

We also have a moral obligation to provide assistance to the very poor, even if they do not have children. When we talk about childless adults in CHIP, we are talking about the very poorest of the poor. Most of the childless adults in the program live well below 100 percent of Federal poverty. An adult at 50 percent of the Federal poverty level must attempt to survive on less than $500 per month. This is not enough to afford adequate food and shelter, let alone health insurance, in any State. We all know a single visit to the emergency room can cost more than someone in this situation makes in a year. Providing coverage to childless adults increases their ability to see a doctor when a problem is small, at a significantly lower cost than if care is delayed, the problem is exacerbated, and the result is an emergency room visit. Covering poor individuals helps to curb the cost of health care and health insurance for all of us, because we all bear emergency room costs through higher hospital and physician charges and then through increased health insurance premiums.

I strongly believe we should continue to cover current populations. CHIP has allowed states to mold the program to meet their specific needs, and while we may not all agree with what each State chooses to do, we should respect that decision. Additionally, we should never impose policies on States that would result in a higher number of uninsured for the State. It is bad policy, and it's the wrong thing to do.

Another issue critical to children's health is to ensure that unnecessary or burdensome barriers to enrollment are removed. The onerous citizenship documentation requirements established in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, DRA, are keeping hundreds of thousands of eligible beneficiaries from the health care they need. This provision has created a serious new roadblock to coverage. As a result of the provision, which requires U.S. citizens to document their citizenship and identity when they apply for Medicaid or renew their coverage, a growing number of States are reporting a drop in Medicaid enrollment, particularly among children, but also among pregnant women and low- income parents. Health care coverage is being delayed or denied for tens of thousands of children who are clearly citizens and eligible for Medicaid but who cannot produce the limited forms of documentation prescribed by the regulations. These children are having to go without necessary medical care, essential medicines and therapies. In addition, community health centers are reporting a decline in the number of Medicaid patients due to the documentation requirements and are faced with treating more uninsured patients as a result.

In Wisconsin, more than 26,000 individuals--half of whom were children under age 16--lost Medicaid or were denied coverage solely because they could not satisfy the federal documentation requirements. About two-

thirds of these people are known by the state to be U.S. citizens; most of the remainder are likely to be citizens as well, but have yet to prove it.

A study of 300 community health centers, conducted by George Washington University, found that the citizenship documentation requirements have caused a nationwide disruption in Medicaid coverage. Researchers estimate a loss of coverage for as many as 319,500 health center patients, which will result in an immediate financial loss of up to $85 million in Medicaid revenues. The loss of revenue hampers the ability of safety net providers to adequately respond to the medical needs of the communities they serve.

In addition to consequences suffered by eligible U.S. citizens, states have reported incurring substantial new administrative costs associated with implementing the requirement. They have had to hire additional staff, retool computer systems, and pay to obtain birth records. States are also reporting that the extra workload imposed by the new requirement is diverting time and attention that could be devoted to helping more eligible children secure and retain health coverage.

States are in the best position to decide if a documentation requirement is needed and, if so, to determine the most effective and reasonable ways to implement it. States that do not find it necessary to require such documentation could return to the procedures they used prior to the DRA and avoid the considerable administrative and financial burdens associated with implementing the DRA requirement. Most importantly, these states could avoid creating obstacles to Medicaid coverage for eligible U.S. citizens.

Despite significant support for allowing states to determine the best way to document citizenship, that complete fix is not included in the underlying bill. The restrictions are eased, and this is an important first step, but I hope we can continue to move forward on this issue and return this requirement to a State option. I am pleased that this is done in the CHIP reauthorization in the House version of this legislation, and I hope that as we continue to work to support children's health care, we will also work to remove barriers to enrollment that are preventing our children from receiving the care they need.

In addition to these issues that we considered in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization, I would like to talk about the bigger picture of health care reform. There is a crisis facing our country, a crisis that directly affects the lives of over 45 million people in the United States, and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack of universal health insurance in America. It is consistently the number one issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the No. 1 issue for many Americans. Nevertheless, the issue has been largely ignored in the Halls of Congress. We sit idle, locked in a stalemate, refusing to give this life-threatening problem its due attention. We need a way to break that deadlock, and that is why last April, I introduced a bill with the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, that will do just that the State-Based Health Care Reform Act.

Senator Graham and I are from opposite ends of the political spectrum, we are from different areas of the country, and we have different views on health care. But we agree that something needs to be done about health care in our country. In short, our bill establishes a pilot project to provide States with the resources needed to implement universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of reform the States should implement, it just provides an incentive for action, provided the States meet certain minimum coverage and low- income requirements.

Even though Senator Graham and I support different methods of health care reform, we both agree that this legislation presents a viable solution to the logjam preventing reform.

This bipartisan legislation harnesses the talent and ingenuity of Americans to come up with new solutions. This approach takes advantage of America's greatest resources--the mind power and creativity of the American people--to move our country toward the goal of a working health care system with universal coverage. With help from the Federal Government, States will be able to try new ways of covering all their residents, and our political logjam around health care will begin to loosen.

We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet there are those in our society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. Over the past few days, my colleagues have shared tragic stories of children who have suffered as a result of being uninsured, and we have listened to the heartwarming stories of families who have--quite literally--been saved by the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization marks an important leap forward in getting coverage to those who need it. I was pleased to support this bill's final passage, and I look forward to the day that everyone in our country has access to the basic right of health care.

Mr. President, today I am introducing two censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President, and Attorney General for their misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law. These censure resolutions are critical steps to hold the administration accountable for the misconduct and egregious abuses of the law that we have witnessed over the past 6\1/2\ years.

When future generations look back at the misbehavior of this administration, they need to know that an equal branch of Government stood up and formally repudiated that misbehavior. They need to know that this administration was not allowed to violate with impunity the principles on which our Nation was founded.

Some have said that censure does too little. Others protest that it goes too far. I understand the concerns of those who believe that this administration deserves worse than censure. I agree that censure is not a cure for the devastating toll this administration's actions have had on this country. But it is a step in the right direction and it most certainly is important for the historical record. Because censure does not require multiple impeachments in the House and trials in the Senate, or the support of two-thirds of Senators, it is far less cumbersome than impeachment. We can pass these resolutions without taking significant time away from our efforts to address other pressing matters.

The first resolution, S. Res. 302, cosponsored by Senators Harkin and Boxer, censures the President and Vice President for their misconduct relating to the war in Iraq. It cites their misleading pre-war statements, which

were not based on available intelligence, exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the likelihood that he had nuclear weapons, and falsely implying that he had a relationship with al Qaeda and links to 9/11. This resolution also condemns the President's appalling failure to ensure that adequate plans were in place to address the post-Saddam problems predicted by the intelligence community, and in particular his failure to ensure that sufficient troops were deployed to maintain order and secure weapons stockpiles in Iraq. The resolution censures the President for pursuing policies in Iraq that have placed unfair burdens on our brave men and women in uniform and undermined our homeland security. The resolution censures the Vice President for his misleading statements about the Iraqi insurgency being in its ``last throes.'' The Vice President's recent, belated concession that he was incorrect does not mitigate his efforts to mislead the American people on this point.

The second resolution, S. Res. 303, cosponsored by Senator Harkin, censures the President and Attorney General for undermining the rule of law. The President and Attorney General have shown flagrant disregard for statutes, for treaties ratified by the United States, and for our own Constitution--all in an effort to consolidate more and more power in the executive branch. In the process, they have repeatedly misled the American people. Among the abuses of the rule of law that this censure resolution addresses are the illegal warrantless wiretapping program at the National Security Agency, the administration's interrogation policy, extreme positions taken on treatment of detainees that have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court, misleading statements by the President and the Attorney General on the USA PATRIOT Act, the refusal to recognize and cooperate with Congress's legitimate responsibility to conduct oversight, and the use of signing statements that further demonstrate this President does not believe he has to follow the laws that Congress writes.

More than a year ago, I introduced a resolution to censure the President for breaking the law with his warrantless wiretapping program and for misleading the public and Congress before and after the program was revealed. This time, I am taking a broader approach because evidence of the administration's misconduct, misleading statements and abuses of power has only mounted since then.

While I do not believe impeachment proceedings would be best for the country, I share the public's deep anger at this administration's repeated and serious wrongdoing and its refusal to acknowledge or answer for its actions. These two resolutions give Congress a way to condemn the administration's actions without taking time and energy away from the other critically important work before us.

Passing these resolutions would also make clear, not only to the American people today, but also to future generations, how this President and this administration misserved the country. History will judge them, and us, by our actions, so we must formally condemn the malfeasance of this President and his administration.

Censure is a measured approach that both holds this administration accountable and allows Congress to focus on ending the war in Iraq, protecting the rule of law and addressing the many other needs of the American people. I am pleased to be working with Congressman Maurice Hinchey, who is introducing companion legislation.

Mr. President, this is a proud day for the Senate. I certainly thank the Chair of the committee, the Senator from California, for all her guidance and hard work to make sure this legislation got to this point. I certainly thank the Presiding Officer, Mr. Obama of Illinois, who has been a wonderful partner in this effort. I enjoyed working with him, and he was tough all the way through when it counted to make sure we would end up with this kind of strong legislation. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Many months of work on legislation to reform our Nation's lobbying disclosure laws and the rules that govern our conduct as Senators are about to come to a close. The result is a bill that by any measure must be considered landmark legislation. I am pleased to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and support the bill. I want to speak for a few minutes about what is in this bill and the forces that brought us to this moment.

I introduced the first comprehensive lobbying and ethics reform package in the Senate in July 2005, about 10 years after enactment of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and the last significant changes to the Senate's rules on gifts and travel on which I worked with the senior Senator from Arizona. A decade of experience had exposed the weaknesses in those important pieces of legislation. In light of growing concern about the relationships between certain Members of Congress and Washington lobbyists, I thought it was time to undertake further significant reform.

In the months that followed, the Jack Abramoff scandal consumed more and more space on the front pages of the newspaper. When he was indicted in December, lobbying and ethics reform all of a sudden got a big burst of momentum in Congress. In the first few months of 2006, radical reform seemed not only possible but likely. Hearings were held, and a bidding war for who could sound the most sincere about fixing the problems that had led to the Abramoff scandal ensued.

Unfortunately, the congressional leadership at the time talked a good game, but was not really committed to reform. The bill that passed the Senate last May fell well short not only of what was needed, but also of what had been promised only a few months earlier. The House leadership waited even longer to act and tried to add controversial campaign finance legislation to the package, dooming it to defeat. The conventional wisdom was that the voters didn't care, at least that's what the defenders of the status quo assured themselves as they engineered the stalemate that led to no reform at all being enacted. As we found last November, they were wrong.

The voters sent a clear message in November 2006 that they were fed up with the way things were going in Washington. And the leaders of the new Congress responded to that message by making lobbying and ethics reform their very top priority. Speaker Pelosi included major changes to the ethics rules in the House in a package of rules changes adopted on the very first day of the session. And Majority Leader Reid introduced an ethics and lobbying reform package as S. 1 and brought it immediately to the Senate floor.

I am pleased that only 7 months later, we are here today to finish the job. The bill before us is a very strong piece of reform legislation. We have a real ban on gifts from lobbyists, strong new rules governing privately funded travel, a requirement that Senators pay the full charter rate to travel on corporate jets for personal, official or campaign purposes, strengthened revolving door restrictions, and improved lobbying disclosure provisions. And for the first time, the public will get a full accounting, through reports filed by lobbyists, and reports filed by campaigns and party committees, of all the ways that lobbyists provide financial support for the Members of Congress who they lobby.

I am very pleased also that the bill includes provisions to provide greater transparency in the process by which

legislation is considered here in the Senate. Finally, after years of failed attempts, secret holds on legislation will be a relic of the past. In addition, out of scope additions to conference reports can be stricken individually rather than bringing down the whole report. All of these items show the seriousness with which this Congress and its new leadership addressed the anger that the American people expressed last November.

Let me say a word about earmarks. I heard my colleagues discussing it, and they know how strong I have been on this issue and how much I opposed the earmark process in my own practices and how many times I supported strong legislation in this regard. I have long been a strong supporter of earmark reform. I have cosponsored legislation on this topic with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. Back in January, when the Senate first debated this bill, I broke with my leadership and supported the earmark reform amendment authored by the junior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint. It is my judgment that the earmark reforms included in the proposal before the Senate today are consistent with the DeMint amendment, much stronger than the original bipartisan leadership proposal that was introduced in January, and an enormous improvement over the way earmarks had been handled by both Democratic and Republican-controlled Congresses in the past. It is simply not accurate to say that the final version of this provision guts the DeMint amendment that the Senate passed early this year. The minor changes that were made certainly do not justify a vote against cloture or against the bill.

The difference between the approach to lobbying and ethics reform this year and last year is this: Last year there was a lot of tough talk, but when it came down to it, the goal was to try to satisfy public outrage but actually do as little as possible. This year, the tough talk was backed up by tough action. This bill includes real reform on things like gifts and earmarks that get a lot of public attention and also on things like secret holds and corporate jets that occur mostly behind the scenes but have a big impact on how things work in Washington.

I especially thank Majority Leader Reid for his steadfast insistence on passing strong legislation. This is a great accomplishment for him and for the Senate. I am pleased it is getting done in a timely manner. And I want to thank my colleagues for recognizing that regardless of how reforms might inconvenience us or impact our personal lifestyles, our priority must be to convince our constituents that we are here to advocate their best interests, not those of well-connected lobbyists.

Ethical conduct in government should be more than an aspiration, it should be a requirement. That is what this bill is all about. I am proud to support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote aye on cloture, and on final passage of the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, one of the most important provisions contained in S. 1 when it first passed the Senate in January was an amendment offered by the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, to require lobbyists to report on a quarterly basis the campaign contributions that they collected or arranged for Members of Congress. I was the primary cosponsor of that amendment. The activity the amendment covered is often called ``bundling.'' S. 1, as passed by the Senate, also required lobbyists to report on fundraisers that they host or cohost.

I am very pleased that the final bill maintains the requirement that this information be disclosed. It is important to note, however, that an agreement was reached to move the duty to report this information from the lobbyists to campaigns, in part to protect Members from unfounded allegations that lobbyists had raised political contributions for them when they actually had not. I would like to ask the Senator from Illinois, who worked hard to make sure that a bundling provision was included in the final bill, if section 204 of the bill is designed to capture the same kind of activity that the Obama amendment covered-- lobbyists' bundling of contributions and hosting of fundraisers for Federal candidates?

I agree with that. With respect specifically to fundraisers hosted or cohosted by lobbyists, my view is that virtually all such events would be covered by this provision. Is

that how the Senator from Illinois sees it as well?

That is my understanding as well of section 204. It requires, however, that a candidate or campaign know that a lobbyist has raised a certain amount of money, not that they are just generally aware that the lobbyist has been fundraising for the campaign.

And it should be understood as well that the term ``raised'' in section 204 includes but is broader than the term ``solicited,'' which is defined in the FEC regulations issued to implement the campaign finance laws. For example, even if a lobbyist does not make a solicitation for a contribution, as the term ``solicit'' has been defined in FEC regulations, the lobbyist will still have ``raised'' a contribution if the lobbyist facilitated the contribution by hosting or cohosting a fundraising event that brought in the contribution.

Yes, the purpose of the bundling reporting provision is to get as much disclosure as possible of bundling by lobbyists. In the provision, we have specifically asked the FEC to keep that purpose in mind as it promulgates regulations. The bill requires a committee to report ``each person'' who ``provided 2 or more bundled contributions'' in excess of the ``applicable threshold,'' which is an aggregate amount of $15,000 in a 6-month period. When two or more lobbyists are jointly involved in providing the same bundled contributions--as, for instance, in the case of a fundraising event co-hosted by two or more lobbyists-- then each lobbyist is responsible for and should be treated as providing the total amount raised at the event, for purposes of applying the applicable threshold to the funds raised by that lobbyist, and for purposes of reporting by the committee of ``the aggregate amount'' of bundled contributions ``provided by each'' registered lobbyist ``during the covered period.''

It would be acceptable, of course, to report that certain funds were raised jointly in a single event so that by crediting each of the lobbyists involved with the total amount and reporting each lobbyist on the new schedule, the campaign does not suggest that the total amount of contributions bundled is far greater than the amount actually raised. But a campaign should not be able to avoid disclosing, for example, that three lobbyists raised $30,000 in a single fundraiser by claiming that each lobbyist has been credited with only one-third of the total amount. If this evasion were allowed, reporting for any fundraising event could be avoided simply by adding enough lobbyist cohosts for the event so that all of the lobbyists fall below the threshold. We certainly did not intend that result.

I agree. The Commission should not allow evasion or game playing of any kind, by campaigns, candidates, or lobbyists, to avoid reporting the activities of lobbyists. Section 204, the bundled contributions reporting section, along with section 203, which requires reports of campaign contributions and other payments by lobbyists themselves, is about giving information to the American people about how lobbyists provide financial assistance to Members of Congress and candidates. This information will allow the public to understand much better how Washington works. I congratulate the Senator from Illinois for successfully seeing his amendment through the process and into the final bill.

Mr. President, the bill before us contains, in section 542, a provision to prohibit Senators from attending parties to honor them at the national party conventions if those parties are paid for by lobbyists or organizations that employ or retain lobbyists. The provision originated with an amendment that I offered to S. 1 when the Senate considered S. 1 at the beginning of the year. My amendment passed the Senate on January 17, 2007, by a vote of 89 to 5. I am pleased that the final bill retains this provision and also contains in section 305 a similar provision that will apply to Members of the House of Representatives. I wanted to take a minute to explain the purpose and operation of the provision and why I believe it was an important addition to the bill.

When the Senate adopted the Reid amendment in January to strengthen the lobbyist gift ban, we took a huge step toward eliminating gifts to Members of Congress from lobbyists and groups that lobby. The final bill retained that language, and it is one of the most significant provisions in the bill. But it is important to remember that the lobbyist gift ban is subject to the same exceptions in the gift rule that now apply. Some of these exceptions, like the personal friendship exception and the informational materials exception, are sensible and limited. Others, particularly the widely attended event exception, sometimes allow items of great value to be given to Members. Over the next few years, the Senate should look closely at whether lobbyists will now flock to these exceptions in order to continue to give us gifts. We may need to revisit some of the exceptions in the future.

One application of the widely attended event exception needed to be addressed immediately. At the political party conventions, which many of us attend, lobbyists and groups that lobby have fine-tuned the widely attended event exception and turned it into almost a competition over who can throw the most lavish, the most over-the-top, the most excessive party in honor of a powerful Member of Congress. These parties have become huge gifts to the honored Members. Essentially they allow a Member to host a gigantic party, with an unlimited expense account granted by the generous lobbyist sponsor.

Mr. President, I will ask to have a USA Today story about these parties at the Republican convention in 2004 printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Here is how that story begins:

On Tuesday night, a few fortunate Republicans attending the

party's convention will have a chance to try on ``the most

exclusive and prestigious jewels in the world'' at the

Cartier Mansion on the edge of New York's Diamond District.

The point is not only to ``indulge yourself,'' as an

invitation says. It's also to honor a Republican congressman

from Texas, Henry Bonilla, at a cocktail reception under

chandeliers that sparkle almost as brightly as the diamonds

and emeralds beneath them.

The event is hosted by a group of Washington lobbyists who

hope to reinforce their ties with Bonilla, a powerful

chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee. It's but one

among more than 200 lavish parties being thrown this week by

corporations, lobbyists, trade groups and other interests

whose fortunes rise and fall on the actions of government

policymakers.

The article continues:

Bonilla is just one of many committee chairmen and members

of the House and Senate leadership who will be feted at what

may be the most expensive round of receptions, dinners,

concerts, golf outings and cruises ever at a political

convention.

The USA Today story lists some of the other parties. Let me quote again from the article:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois was the honoree at

a reception Sunday afternoon sponsored by General Motors at

Tavern on the Green, a glittering Victorian gothic restaurant

on the edge of Central Park. The Distilled Spirits Council of

the United States threw a reception at the New York Yacht

Club for Rep. Thomas Reynolds of New York, chairman of the

party's House campaign committee. And AT&T, Chevron Texaco,

Target and Time Warner were among the sponsors of a martinis-

and-bowling night for House Rules Committee Chairman David

Dreier of California.

AT&T also is among the sponsors of a Tuesday ``Texas Honky

Tonk for Joe Barton,'' the Texas congressman who chairs the

House Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton's panel has wide

jurisdiction over telecommunications, health and energy. And

members of the House Financial Services and Senate Banking

committees will be toasted at Madame Tussaud's Tuesday night,

sponsored by JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs.

The conventions have thus become giant lobbying festivals. Everyone who wants to get close to powerful Members of Congress is there, or at least everyone with the money to spend on a lavish party honoring a Member.

Here is what one lobbyist said about these parties at the 2004 Republican convention, according to USA Today:

``The Republicans are the majority party. They run the

administration, they run the House, they run the Senate. So

anyone who wants to talk to them is there,'' says David

Hoppe, a lobbyist at the Washington firm Quinn Gillespie &

Associates. ``It is a good time to see people and establish

personal relationships.''

Another lobbyist commented about the importance of these types of events as follows:

``You go (to the convention) with a targeted plan of who

you need to see, and you can get a lot of work done,'' says

Scott Reed, a Republican lobbyist and political strategist.

Approaching policymakers in a social setting puts them more

at ease, he says, ``unlike in Washington, where you are

normally coming to ask a favor or to help get somebody out of

trouble.''

I don't know about my colleagues, but my stomach turns when I read an article like this. And we all know that similar events take place at the Democratic convention. The brazenness of these events as places where monied interests have special access to lawmakers is just shocking. We simply could not go back to our constituents and claim credit for getting rid of gifts from lobbyists if we allowed these kinds of events to continue at the conventions. And so I offered my amendment, and I am pleased that it was adopted in January and included as section 542 in the final bill.

Section 542 does not prohibit parties at the convention, but it does prohibit Senators from accepting free attendance at parties thrown in their honor at the conventions. If an industry group wants to throw a party, fine, but they won't have a congressional guest of honor to use as a lure to get other lobbyists to pitch in and fund the party. And a Senator won't be able to accept a gift of hosting a huge party at the expense of lobbyists and groups that lobby.

According to USA Today, these huge parties honoring Members date back to 1996, just a year after the gift ban was passed. They have increased in recent years, especially since the soft money ban we passed in 2002 prevents corporations from making huge contributions to the political parties. These convention events are one of the few ways that corporations and the lobbyists they employ can show their loyalty to a Member of Congress in a big way. It is time that we close this brazen evasion of the spirit of the gift rules. I am pleased that section 305 and section 542 will do just that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the USA Today article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing with the Senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, which would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2007 is similar to bills that I introduced in previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.

I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in fighting fatigue or stress.

In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces over 90 percent of the ginseng grown in the U.S., with the vast majority of that ginseng grown in just one Wisconsin county, Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other states such as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In 2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead.

Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem, smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.''

Here is how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian or Canadian- grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product.

There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for pesticides that are banned in the U.S. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine, PCNB, have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S.

To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase-- where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides.

My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2007, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be clearly labeled with the country of harvest at the point of importation or when it is sold at wholesale or retail. ``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision.

I have also made sure that these straight-forward labeling provisions are reasonable for the legitimate importers, wholesalers and retailers of ginseng. My bill only covers ginseng as a raw root, the form in which the majority of the high quality Wisconsin ginseng is sold. I have also clarified the legislation to make it clear that retailers are only responsible for transmitting the country of harvest label that they received from the importer or wholesaler to the consumer. So if the retailer never received the country of harvest label, it is only the wholesaler or importer that is liable. Moreover, I added a provision that requires the USDA to conduct outreach to the wholesalers, importers, retailers, trade associations and other interested parties during the 180 days provided before the labeling requirement takes effect.

Besides the support from the ginseng growers of the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, I am glad to have the support of the American Herbal Products Association and the United Natural Products Alliance. The support of both the growers of ginseng and these trade associations focused on herbal and natural products are further testament to the broad support for the legislation Senator Kohl and I introduce today.

These commonsense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers seek out a high-quality ginseng root--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng, they are getting the real thing, not a knock-off.

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

Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am introducing with the Senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, which would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2007 is similar to bills that I introduced in previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.

I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in fighting fatigue or stress.

In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin produces over 90 percent of the ginseng grown in the U.S., with the vast majority of that ginseng grown in just one Wisconsin county, Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other states such as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In 2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future ahead.

Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious problem, smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as ``Wisconsin-grown.''

Here is how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian or Canadian- grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product.

There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for pesticides that are banned in the U.S. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and quintozine, PCNB, have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which ginseng is really grown in the U.S.

To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase-- where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains dangerous pesticides.

My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2007, proposes some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw agricultural commodity, be clearly labeled with the country of harvest at the point of importation or when it is sold at wholesale or retail. ``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers to make an informed decision.

I have also made sure that these straight-forward labeling provisions are reasonable for the legitimate importers, wholesalers and retailers of ginseng. My bill only covers ginseng as a raw root, the form in which the majority of the high quality Wisconsin ginseng is sold. I have also clarified the legislation to make it clear that retailers are only responsible for transmitting the country of harvest label that they received from the importer or wholesaler to the consumer. So if the retailer never received the country of harvest label, it is only the wholesaler or importer that is liable. Moreover, I added a provision that requires the USDA to conduct outreach to the wholesalers, importers, retailers, trade associations and other interested parties during the 180 days provided before the labeling requirement takes effect.

Besides the support from the ginseng growers of the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, I am glad to have the support of the American Herbal Products Association and the United Natural Products Alliance. The support of both the growers of ginseng and these trade associations focused on herbal and natural products are further testament to the broad support for the legislation Senator Kohl and I introduce today.

These commonsense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers seek out a high-quality ginseng root--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng, they are getting the real thing, not a knock-off.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor today to raise the critical and timely issue of the U.N. Security Council's authorization of an expanded peacekeeping mission for the Darfur region of Sudan. Senator Durbin has been a stalwart advocate for the people of Darfur for years and I admire and appreciate his dedication to keeping their plight at the top of Congress's agenda and to making sure we finally take strong action to help the more than 2 million displaced Darfuris who are languishing in squalid camps and punish those who continue to be responsible for their plight.

The United Nations Security Council is currently considering a resolution expected to authorize a robust peacekeeping mission to protect the innocent people of Darfur. This is of course a welcome, and overdue, effort. By now, there is little disagreement anywhere in the world that the current force of just over 7,000 courageous but underequipped and beleaguered African Union peacekeepers is not adequately protecting civilians or aid workers from attacks by rebels and government-sponsored militias, nor are they able to sufficiently safeguard humanitarian access to the tens of thousands whose survival now depends upon outside assistance. The AU force in Darfur has repeatedly been deprived of adequate resources and equipment, and yet despite this inconsistent support they have remained committed to the job. Support from the United Nations has been in theory forthcoming, for quite some time. In principle, the roadblocks have been many and the unfortunate result of this hobbled mission transition has been more violence, more displacement, and more death throughout Darfur.

The recent acceptance to expedite the transition of this mission to a more robust U.N.-AU mission is a step in the right direction, but we must bear in mind the number of agreements that have long since been overlooked, ignored, or flat-out rejected by the Sudanese Government.

And while a draft resolution being circulated indicates that the international community is actively moving forward to deploy this hybrid force, I am very disappointed that the resolution's cosponsors have succumbed to pressure from the Sudanese and deleted language which condemned the government for violations of past U.N. resolutions and peace agreements and removed the threat of sanctions in the event of continued noncompliance. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad suggests that the United States has been ``flexible'' and ``open minded in terms of non-core issues'' when negotiating this resolution, and I can only hope the administration will not .show flexibility when firmness is required. I certainly understand the necessity of diplomatic compromise; however, I feel strongly that the draft resolution being circulated in New York has been unacceptably weakened.

The amended resolution begins by ``Recalling all its previous resolutions and presidential statements concerning the situation in Sudan.'' In fact, however, this new proposal steps back from nearly a dozen Security Council resolutions, dating back to July 2004. Those resolutions were not just addressing the ``situation in Sudan''--they were expressing concern over the rising violence in Darfur and the role of the Sudanese Government in perpetuating the conflict. The distinction here is an important one and should not be overlooked.

The preamble goes on to detail the development and endorsement of the so-called Addis Ababa Agreement, which laid out the three-phased approach to an unprecedented joint United Nations-African Union ``hybrid'' peacekeeping mission. At that time--8 months ago--then- Secretary-General Kofi Annan seemed confident that troops would be mobilizing soon, and the U.S. administration promptly welcomed what it called ``the successful outcome of this historic meeting.''

What appears to have been forgotten in November, and again in the current U.N. debate, is that in August of 2006--just about a year ago-- the Security Council passed Resolution 1706, which authorized up to 22,500 U.N. troops and police officers for a robust United Nations peacekeeping force with the power to use all necessary means to protect humanitarian aid workers and civilian populations, as well as to seize and dispose of illegal weapons. The new resolution currently being considered in New York does not reference Resolution 1706 or the Sudanese Government's defiant refusal to comply with its provisions. Nor does it draw the appropriate lessons from the failed attempt to deploy U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur almost a year ago.

Rather than include stronger monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the Sudanese Government and other parties to the conflict abide by existing agreements and cooperate with the new peacekeeping mission, the resolution's cosponsors appear to have backed down to Sudanese pressure. Their weakened resolution omits a condemnation of Sudan for failing to ensure humanitarian aid reaches those in need, deletes reference to evidence of violations of the UNSC-mandated arms embargo--which many outside experts have noted has been repeatedly violated with little consequence--drops a request that the Secretary General immediately report any breach of this or previous resolutions and agreements, and removes a threat that the U.N. would take ``further measures''--in other words, sanctions--in the event of noncompliance. How can we believe that individuals will be held accountable for their actions when we have seen such entrenched impunity?

In terms of the peacekeeping mission envisioned for Darfur,this new resolution is much less ambitious than Resolution 1706. The new ``UNAMID'' mission is referred to as an ``operation,'' rather than a ``force,'' and rather than giving peacekeepers the authority to ``use all necessary means'' to protect civilians and aid workers, the new resolution allows them only to ``take all necessary action.'' These semantic distinctions reveal a worrisome retreat from the robust, capable mission authorized in Resolution 1706. And yet, the Sudanese Government has criticized even this diluted resolution. As I said before, diplomatic compromise is important, but not as important as making sure we finally have the tools to punish and put a stop to atrocities.

Sudan's obstruction of this most recent international effort to end the genocide in Darfur should not surprise anyone. After all, this is the same regime we saw attack its own citizens in indiscriminate bombing raids and obstruct humanitarian access during 2 decades of bloody civil war with southern Sudan. These same tactics are being used today in Darfur.

Last week, in its first overall review of Sudan's record for more than a decade, the U.N.'s independent Human Rights Committee said that ``widespread and systematic serious human rights violations--including murder, rape, forced displacement and attacks against the civil population--have been and continue to be committed with total impunity throughout Sudan and particularly in Darfur.'' The only thing more disturbing than the Sudanese Government's practice of organized atrocities as a method of governance is the inability of the international community so far to put a stop to these crimes and secure justice for the victims.

How many more families must be displaced? How many more innocent lives lost? How many more U.N. resolutions, presidential statements, political speeches, and public rallies will be needed? How much evidence of calculated persecution will it take before the international community stands up to the Sudanese Government and the rebels, brings them to the negotiating table, and deploys an expanded peacekeeping mission to protect civilians and ultimately, help secure the peace, in a region that for too long has received much attention but little action?

Although the revised resolution omits the original reference to Chad and the Central African Republic, it does express ``concern that the ongoing violence in Darfur might further negatively affect the rest of Sudan as well as the region.'' The short- and long-term impacts of the crisis in Darfur are real, far-reaching, and very troubling. The humanitarian consequences will require massive logical coordination and rehabilitation assistance. Economically, the rebuilding of infrastructure and livelihoods will demand additional resources and technical support. And this will be required not just for

Darfur but for the whole of Sudan, as well as the broader region.

If this U.N. resolution is passed as it currently stands, we can expect the Sudanese Government to try to evade its requirements and agreements without a single consequence. Should that happen, the toll of the genocide in Darfur will continue to mount--in lives lost, in persons displaced, and in fundamental human values that the international community has failed to uphold.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was pleased to support the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. Our national security strategy needs to adapt in order to meet new and emerging threats while ensuring those in charge of protecting us have the resources they need. I am pleased to support the current Homeland Security appropriations bill which includes many important measures to keep our communities safe.

The Senate unanimously accepted my amendment to improve the Safe Skies program that I established a few years ago. The amendment will encourage the Transportation Security Administration and the airlines to better implement legislation I authored that allows first responders to volunteer to help flight crews in the event of an onboard emergency.

The bill would increase funding for State fire fighter and emergency management grants. Along with a bipartisan coalition of Senators, I wrote to Senate appropriators earlier in the year asking that they increase funding for these important grants. The appropriators agreed with our recommendations and recommended $700,000,000 for fire fighter grants and $300,000,000 for emergency management performance grants. These funds will help State and local agencies obtain the equipment and training they need to protect us against terrorist incidents and natural disasters.

I was disappointed that an amendment I cosponsored to fund decontamination units for the National Guard's Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, WMD-CST, did not receive a vote. As a result of legislation I authored, every State in this Nation now has a functional WMD-CST. The Department of Defense recently announced that it will soon finalize the certifications of all of these teams. I will continue to work to ensure that the National Guard receives the funds it needs to perform its homeland security operations.

The bill would appropriate the funds needed to hire 3,000 additional border patrol agents. This important provision will help us secure our borders and restore credibility to our immigration system. While I was deeply disappointed that the Senate was unable to reach a bipartisan compromise to implement comprehensive immigration reform, I am pleased that the bill will help improve our border security. I also supported an amendment offered by Senator Graham to appropriate an additional $3 billion for additional border agents, infrastructure and technology. I was concerned that the amendment was not offset and that it authorized building 700 miles of fencing, which has not been demonstrated to be a realistic or cost-effective method of securing the border. However, I supported the amendment because the personnel, infrastructure, and technology provisions represent important steps toward border security, which is one of our top homeland security priorities.

The bill would permit States to enact chemical security regulations that are stronger than Federal regulations. Chemical security regulations are an urgent homeland security priority, and I support the ability of the States to set tougher standards.

Wisconsin residents and Americans across the country are concerned about the serious backlog in passport application process. This bill would delay the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to keep the backlog from increasing until we have a chance to resolve this issue.

I voted to table an amendment offered by Senator Alexander that would have reduced funding for border, port and air security in order to provide increased funding for implementation of the REAL ID Act. That act is deeply flawed. While I am concerned that it remains an unfunded priority, I am also concerned that, if we head down the road of funding this misguided policy, the Senate will not take the necessary steps to reform the REAL ID Act. Moreover, the National Governors Association has estimated that the cost of implementing the REAL ID Act could reach $11 billion, which means that the increased funding provided by this amendment, $400 million, would do little to address the unfunded mandate of REAL ID while taking away money for pressing homeland security priorities. I will continue to push for reform of the REAL ID Act, to provide for proper funding of any Federal mandate in the reformed act, and to ensure that the implementation of the act is not rushed.

We are still spending almost twice as much on Iraq as is allocated for homeland security, diplomacy, and international assistance combined. The billions we spend each month in Iraq could be better invested in the protection of critical infrastructure and our system of national preparedness and response that failed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. As we consider the defense appropriation this fall, I encourage my colleagues to take a broader view when it comes to our national security priorities and make the tradeoffs that must be made.

This bill would significantly increase spending on homeland security. I do not take lightly a decision to vote in favor of spending the taxpayers' money. Fiscal responsibility is one of my highest priorities, but it is imperative that we provide the resources needed to combat al-Qaida and its affiliates and protect the country.

I am pleased that the bill would appropriate funds to double the frequency of spot checks at regulated port facilities across the country, to conduct vulnerability assessments at 10 high risk ports, to create a radiation detection test center to help scan cargo and to purchase and install explosives detection equipment at airports. Much more remains to be done. I will continue to work to ensure that our national security strategies address the range of

threats we face and properly prioritizes homeland security.

Madam President, I want to add my thoughts to the debate on the conference report accompanying the Improving America's Security Act of 2007.

First, I want to preface my remarks by applauding the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for their work on this important bill. This bill makes crucial and long overdue improvements in transportation security, critical infrastructure protection and emergency response capabilities. There is no higher priority than protecting homeland security and this bill is a key component in that effort.

I am particularly pleased that the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act is included in this bill as Section 804. I have been working on this legislation for a number of years with Senator Sununu, Senator Leahy, and Senator Akaka. Many law-abiding Americans are understandably concerned about the specter of secret government programs analyzing vast quantities of public and private data about their pursuits, in search of patterns of suspicious activity. Four years after we first learned about the Defense Department's program called Total Information Awareness, there is still much Congress does not know about the Federal Government's work on data mining. This bill is an important step in allowing Congress to conduct oversight of any such programs or related research development efforts.

I supported the provision in the Senate bill which mandates the declassification of the aggregate amount of the intelligence budget. It is unfortunate that this provision was watered down during the conference process to permit the President to waive this requirement if the disclosure of this information would harm national security. The 9/ 11 Commission found that ``when even aggregate categorical numbers remain hidden it is hard to judge priorities and foster accountability.'' I concur with the Commission, that aggregate budget figures ``provid[e] little insight into U.S. intelligence sources and methods.'' Sharing this information with the American people will provide a greater level of transparency and accountability and in the end make us more secure.

I am pleased that this bill includes provisions to ensure proper oversight of homeland security grants. The bill requires regular auditing of homeland security grant funds to ensure that they funds are spent appropriately and effectively. I will continue to work with my colleagues to improve oversight of homeland security funding.

The conference report also includes important nonproliferation provisions. It would establish a Presidential coordinator for the prevention of WMD proliferation and terrorism. Currently, there is no point person in the Federal Government in charge of coordinating nonproliferation initiatives and efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism. We face a variety of worldwide terrorist threats. One of the most serious of those threats is the possibility that terrorists could smuggle fissile materials into the United States. This provision is an important contribution to our efforts to secure these materials and prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

I must note that one provision of this bill troubles me greatly. That is the so-called John Doe provision concerning immunity for citizens making tips of possible terrorist threats and government officials acting on those tips. This provision was not in the bill that was passed in the Senate, nor was it in the bill that passed the House. It was apparently inspired by a lawsuit filed

after six Muslim imams were told to get off a plane they had boarded in Minneapolis, but the Judiciary Committee never had the opportunity to study it or perfect it. Regardless of its merit, this provision should have received more careful consideration by the Senate. I am deeply concerned that as written this provision appears to endorse racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination. The best way to prevent terrorism is through solid law enforcement and intelligence work, not through scare tactics or racial profiling.

I voted for this bill because it makes key changes to address security needs. However, our Nation's vulnerabilities demand more and I will continue to work to ensure that our vital homeland security needs are met.

Mr. President, in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, today I am introducing legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the U.S. as Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. I want to thank Senators Lautenberg, Levin, Kerry, Lieberman, Boxer, Menendez, Sanders, Cardin, Durbin, Reed, Dodd, Kohl, Whitehouse, Stabenow, Carper, Wyden, Leahy, Brown, and Schumer for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act, to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply, and available for wildlife and fish habitat, has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

We have made considerable progress towards ensuring the Nation's waters are drinkable, fishable, and swimmable. However, today, the Clean Water Act, one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, faces new and unprecedented challenges.

Two controversial, closely divided U.S. Supreme Court rulings have reduced the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act, undermining decades of clean water protections and disregarding Congress' intent when it originally passed the Clean Water Act.

At the heart of the issue is the statutory definition of ``waters of the United States.'' Though recent court decisions have focused on dredge and fill permits under section 404, this definition 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 the 2001 case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, SWANCC, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the authority of Federal agencies to extend Clean Water Act protections to commercially nonnavigable, intrastate, ``isolated'' waters based solely on their use by migratory birds. While the Court's decision was narrow, the effect of the decision has been much broader: for example, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 20 percent of the Nation's wetlands outside Alaska are now at risk of losing Federal protections.

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a sharply divided decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers that jeopardizes many more of our Nation's waters. Four justices joined an opinion that said only permanent or ``continuously flowing'' rivers and streams and by implication, the wetlands next to them are protected by the Clean Water Act, ignoring the act's text and purpose. This line of reasoning would leave more than half of our Nation's waters without Federal protections. To put these bodies of water into perspective, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 110 million Americans get their drinking water from sources that include the very intermittent and ephemeral bodies of water that the four justices said were not protected by the Clean Water Act.

Fortunately, five Justices rejected this radical rewrite of the act. However, Justice Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote to send the cases back to the lower courts, offered an entirely different test; one requiring EPA and the corps to show a ``significant nexus'' between a stream, river, or wetland and a navigable water in order for the stream, river, or wetland to be protected. At best, this test is confusing, will be resource-intensive to implement, and is likely to result in many waters Congress always included under the Clean Water Act being left unprotected from pollution.

Fortunately, an unprecedented array of local, State, regional, and national officials, professional organizations, and public interest groups from across the country and the political spectrum have joined in the defense of the Clean Water Act. The unparalleled collection of interested parties includes the attorneys general of 33 States plus the District of Columbia; four former Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, Russell Train, Douglas Costle, William Reilly, and Carol Browner; 9 current and former members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives who were directly involved in the passage of the 1972 act and its reaffirmation in 1977; the Association of State Wetlands Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; numerous hunting, fishing, wildlife and outdoor recreation organizations and businesses, including Ducks Unlimited, the

National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the American Sportsfishing Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Orvis Company, and the Wildlife Management Institute, among others; and a number of local, regional, and national environmental groups. All of these interests filed briefs in the most recent Supreme Court case, expressing strong support of the Clean Water Act's core safeguard: the requirement to obtain a permit before discharging pollutants into waters of the U.S.

With such strong support for the Clean Water Act, which is grounded in the language, history, and purpose of the law itself, I hope that my colleagues will join me in reaffirming Federal protections for streams, headwaters, tributaries, and wetlands that have long been covered by the act.

The issue before us is simple: Does Congress support restoring historic clean water protections as they existed for nearly 30 years prior to the Supreme Court cases? If so, Congress must act. In 1972, Congress established protections for all ``waters of the United States'' and I am pleased to lead the charge in the Senate to reaffirm those protections.

The Clean Water Restoration Act would reestablish protection for all waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act, prior to the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions. The bill could not be more straight-forward. It makes it clear that the Clean Water Act has always covered a myriad of interstate and intrastate waters, by codifying the regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' that has been in use since the 1970s. In fact, 30 years ago this month, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the act's regulations, properly establishing the scope of waters needing to be protected by the Clean Water Act in order to meet the national objective. The Clean Water Restoration Act would codify the regulations the federal agencies have used to enforce the Clean Water Act for over 30 years. This is necessary to prevent the judicial branch from re-defining ``navigable waters'' as something other than the ``waters of the United States.''

The bill's ``findings'' make it clear that Congress' primary concern in 1972 was to protect the Nation's waters from pollution rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and it reinforces that original intent. It also asserts Congress' constitutional authority, which extends beyond the Commerce Clause to the Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to protect the Nation's waters.

While the Clean Water Restoration Act is critical to preventing the courts from rewriting the law and thus further reducing the protections afforded to our Nation's waters under the Clean Water Act, the bill is remarkably simple and does not do many things.

The bill does not prohibit development or other activities that discharge pollutants into waters. Complying with the Clean Water Act requires following a process that seeks to evaluate proposed activities and minimize impacts by ensuring certain pollution standards or environmental criteria are met. The vast majority of permit requests are granted, and most are granted through expedited ``general'' permits rather than individual permits that require site-specific determinations.

The bill does not change the existing permitting process. Rather, the bill will provide much-needed clarity. The Supreme Court decisions have caused a lot of confusion, and the Corps of Engineers nationally has around 20,000 jurisdictional determinations pending. The regulated community, as well as state and federal agencies, will once again have a clear understanding that Clean Water Act protections extend to the same waters covered by the act for over thirty years.

The bill does not change the EPA and Corps' existing regulations or any aspect of the regulatory programs, in fact, as stated above, the bill defines waters of the U.S. based on the regulations that have been in place since the early 1970s.

The bill does not change the activities that are regulated. This means it does not change or overrule current exemptions related to farming, forestry, ranching, and infrastructure maintenance that have been in place since 1977. Activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, and harvesting; and constructing and maintaining farm or stock ponds, irrigation ditches, and farm or forest roads have been exempted from permitting requirements and will remain so under this bill.

The bill does not create duplicative State and Federal permitting processes. The Clean Water Act created an important Federal-State partnership, and States can choose to assume from the Corps the dredge and fill permitting program, Section 404, or the EPA's NPDES permitting program for point sources, Section 402.

The bill does not preempt state and local authority under the Clean Water Act. However, without the bill many State programs are in jeopardy because many States developed their own clean water laws so that they hinge entirely on the Federal Clean Water Act, and do not have separate state programs to fully address any voids left by the removal of Federal clean water protections. Also, some states prohibit their state laws from being any more protective than the Federal law. This means that if the Federal Clean Water Act's protections are curtailed, then the State's protections are also reduced.

Statements that this bill would ``expand the scope of the Clean Water Act'' are disingenuous at best. For over 30 years, all ``waters of the United States'' have been regulated and Congress should not stand by while the courts and certain special interests roll back the critical protections afforded by the Clean Water Act.

Congress must provide the needed leadership to clarify the intent of the Clean Water Act. Such action must ensure that all waters of the U.S., waters that are valuable for drinking, fishing, swimming, and a host of other economically vital uses, not just navigability, remain protected. After decades of progress, now is not the time to turn back the clock. I hope my colleagues will join me in reaffirming an important clean water pledge to the America people.

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

Mr. President, in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, today I am introducing legislation to affirm Federal jurisdiction over the waters of the U.S. as Congress intended when it passed the Clean Water Act in 1972. I want to thank Senators Lautenberg, Levin, Kerry, Lieberman, Boxer, Menendez, Sanders, Cardin, Durbin, Reed, Dodd, Kohl, Whitehouse, Stabenow, Carper, Wyden, Leahy, Brown, and Schumer for joining me in introducing this important legislation.

For 35 years, the American people have relied upon the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the health of the Nation's waters. The primary goal of the act, to make rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, and coastal waters safe for fishing, swimming and other recreation, suitable for our drinking water supply, and available for wildlife and fish habitat, has broad public support not only as a worthy endeavor but also as a fundamental expectation of government providing for its citizens. It is our responsibility to ensure that our freshwater resources are able to enhance human health, contribute to the economy, and help the environment.

We have made considerable progress towards ensuring the Nation's waters are drinkable, fishable, and swimmable. However, today, the Clean Water Act, one of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws, faces new and unprecedented challenges.

Two controversial, closely divided U.S. Supreme Court rulings have reduced the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act, undermining decades of clean water protections and disregarding Congress' intent when it originally passed the Clean Water Act.

At the heart of the issue is the statutory definition of ``waters of the United States.'' Though recent court decisions have focused on dredge and fill permits under section 404, this definition 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 the 2001 case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, SWANCC, in a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the authority of Federal agencies to extend Clean Water Act protections to commercially nonnavigable, intrastate, ``isolated'' waters based solely on their use by migratory birds. While the Court's decision was narrow, the effect of the decision has been much broader: for example, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 20 percent of the Nation's wetlands outside Alaska are now at risk of losing Federal protections.

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a sharply divided decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers that jeopardizes many more of our Nation's waters. Four justices joined an opinion that said only permanent or ``continuously flowing'' rivers and streams and by implication, the wetlands next to them are protected by the Clean Water Act, ignoring the act's text and purpose. This line of reasoning would leave more than half of our Nation's waters without Federal protections. To put these bodies of water into perspective, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 110 million Americans get their drinking water from sources that include the very intermittent and ephemeral bodies of water that the four justices said were not protected by the Clean Water Act.

Fortunately, five Justices rejected this radical rewrite of the act. However, Justice Kennedy, who provided the fifth vote to send the cases back to the lower courts, offered an entirely different test; one requiring EPA and the corps to show a ``significant nexus'' between a stream, river, or wetland and a navigable water in order for the stream, river, or wetland to be protected. At best, this test is confusing, will be resource-intensive to implement, and is likely to result in many waters Congress always included under the Clean Water Act being left unprotected from pollution.

Fortunately, an unprecedented array of local, State, regional, and national officials, professional organizations, and public interest groups from across the country and the political spectrum have joined in the defense of the Clean Water Act. The unparalleled collection of interested parties includes the attorneys general of 33 States plus the District of Columbia; four former Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, Russell Train, Douglas Costle, William Reilly, and Carol Browner; 9 current and former members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives who were directly involved in the passage of the 1972 act and its reaffirmation in 1977; the Association of State Wetlands Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; numerous hunting, fishing, wildlife and outdoor recreation organizations and businesses, including Ducks Unlimited, the

National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the American Sportsfishing Association, Bass Pro Shops, the Orvis Company, and the Wildlife Management Institute, among others; and a number of local, regional, and national environmental groups. All of these interests filed briefs in the most recent Supreme Court case, expressing strong support of the Clean Water Act's core safeguard: the requirement to obtain a permit before discharging pollutants into waters of the U.S.

With such strong support for the Clean Water Act, which is grounded in the language, history, and purpose of the law itself, I hope that my colleagues will join me in reaffirming Federal protections for streams, headwaters, tributaries, and wetlands that have long been covered by the act.

The issue before us is simple: Does Congress support restoring historic clean water protections as they existed for nearly 30 years prior to the Supreme Court cases? If so, Congress must act. In 1972, Congress established protections for all ``waters of the United States'' and I am pleased to lead the charge in the Senate to reaffirm those protections.

The Clean Water Restoration Act would reestablish protection for all waters historically covered by the Clean Water Act, prior to the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions. The bill could not be more straight-forward. It makes it clear that the Clean Water Act has always covered a myriad of interstate and intrastate waters, by codifying the regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' that has been in use since the 1970s. In fact, 30 years ago this month, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the act's regulations, properly establishing the scope of waters needing to be protected by the Clean Water Act in order to meet the national objective. The Clean Water Restoration Act would codify the regulations the federal agencies have used to enforce the Clean Water Act for over 30 years. This is necessary to prevent the judicial branch from re-defining ``navigable waters'' as something other than the ``waters of the United States.''

The bill's ``findings'' make it clear that Congress' primary concern in 1972 was to protect the Nation's waters from pollution rather than just sustain the navigability of waterways, and it reinforces that original intent. It also asserts Congress' constitutional authority, which extends beyond the Commerce Clause to the Property Clause, Treaty Clause, and Necessary and Proper Clause, to protect the Nation's waters.

While the Clean Water Restoration Act is critical to preventing the courts from rewriting the law and thus further reducing the protections afforded to our Nation's waters under the Clean Water Act, the bill is remarkably simple and does not do many things.

The bill does not prohibit development or other activities that discharge pollutants into waters. Complying with the Clean Water Act requires following a process that seeks to evaluate proposed activities and minimize impacts by ensuring certain pollution standards or environmental criteria are met. The vast majority of permit requests are granted, and most are granted through expedited ``general'' permits rather than individual permits that require site-specific determinations.

The bill does not change the existing permitting process. Rather, the bill will provide much-needed clarity. The Supreme Court decisions have caused a lot of confusion, and the Corps of Engineers nationally has around 20,000 jurisdictional determinations pending. The regulated community, as well as state and federal agencies, will once again have a clear understanding that Clean Water Act protections extend to the same waters covered by the act for over thirty years.

The bill does not change the EPA and Corps' existing regulations or any aspect of the regulatory programs, in fact, as stated above, the bill defines waters of the U.S. based on the regulations that have been in place since the early 1970s.

The bill does not change the activities that are regulated. This means it does not change or overrule current exemptions related to farming, forestry, ranching, and infrastructure maintenance that have been in place since 1977. Activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, and harvesting; and constructing and maintaining farm or stock ponds, irrigation ditches, and farm or forest roads have been exempted from permitting requirements and will remain so under this bill.

The bill does not create duplicative State and Federal permitting processes. The Clean Water Act created an important Federal-State partnership, and States can choose to assume from the Corps the dredge and fill permitting program, Section 404, or the EPA's NPDES permitting program for point sources, Section 402.

The bill does not preempt state and local authority under the Clean Water Act. However, without the bill many State programs are in jeopardy because many States developed their own clean water laws so that they hinge entirely on the Federal Clean Water Act, and do not have separate state programs to fully address any voids left by the removal of Federal clean water protections. Also, some states prohibit their state laws from being any more protective than the Federal law. This means that if the Federal Clean Water Act's protections are curtailed, then the State's protections are also reduced.

Statements that this bill would ``expand the scope of the Clean Water Act'' are disingenuous at best. For over 30 years, all ``waters of the United States'' have been regulated and Congress should not stand by while the courts and certain special interests roll back the critical protections afforded by the Clean Water Act.

Congress must provide the needed leadership to clarify the intent of the Clean Water Act. Such action must ensure that all waters of the U.S., waters that are valuable for drinking, fishing, swimming, and a host of other economically vital uses, not just navigability, remain protected. After decades of progress, now is not the time to turn back the clock. I hope my colleagues will join me in reaffirming an important clean water pledge to the America people.

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

Mr. President, I speak today in support of passage of the Higher Education Act of 2007.

Last week, the Senate took an important step toward increasing access to higher education for low-income students by passing the Higher Education Access Act of 2007 which would increase student aid by approximately $17 billion by cutting Federal subsidies to lenders and banks. Today, the Senate expands on last week's important work by passing the Higher Education Act of 2007, which reauthorizes programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, including title II teacher education programs and title IV student aid programs.

Many students today dream of going to college but face hurdles to making that dream a reality, including financial hurdles, which for many low-income students can become insurmountable. This legislation helps students make their dreams of going to college a reality by reauthorizing a number of important programs that I support, including the Pell grant program, TRIO, GEAR UP, and LEAP. These programs seek to reduce the financial and college preparation barriers that many students face when applying to and attending college.

Higher education is one of the most important investments our Federal Government can make, and Congress created need-based student financial aid programs to ensure that individuals from low-income families are not denied postsecondary education because they cannot afford it. I am deeply concerned about the emergence of a widening educational gap between rich and poor. Statistics illustrate that students from low- income families are pursuing postsecondary education at a much slower rate than individuals from middle and upper income families.

Increasing the maximum award for Pell grants can help in closing the gap between college attendance rates of low-income students and students from middle and upper income families. I have led and supported many efforts to increase the maximum Pell grant award in recent years, including earlier this year when I joined with Senators Kennedy, Collins, and Coleman in leading letters to the Senate Budget and Appropriations supporting the highest possible increase in the maximum Pell grant award. I am pleased that the Higher Education Act of 2007 increases the authorized maximum for Pell grants to $6,300 by the 2011-2012 academic year, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to push for fiscally responsible increases in the Pell grant program in the coming years.

This legislation also makes important changes to the title II, Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program to better train and prepare teachers for working in our Nation's classrooms. Access to high-quality teachers is a key determinant in student academic success at the elementary and secondary level. The provisions in this

legislation that promote mentoring and training new teachers through residency programs will help to ensure that new teachers entering our Nation's schools are better prepared and receive the support they need during their beginning years of teaching.

I was also pleased that the committee accepted language into the managers' package to ensure that the grants for training of teachers will promote a wide range of teaching skills, including measuring students on different forms of assessment, such as performance-based measures, student portfolios, and formative assessments. In an era of increased accountability at the local, State, and Federal level, we need to do all we can to promote more responsible and accurate assessment of students in our K-12 schools.

I remain concerned about the increased use of high-stakes standardized testing at the K-12 level, including using high-stakes standardized tests to make decisions regarding school accountability. By broadening the definition of student learning and teaching skills as this new title II language does, we can better ensure that teachers are trained to more accurately and responsibly measure student achievement through alternatives to high- stakes standardized testing.

This bill also takes important steps toward addressing the abuses in the student loan industry by requiring lenders, banks, and universities to provide more disclosure to students before these students take out education loans. The bill also prohibits campus employees from receiving gifts of more than nominal value from lenders or banks. I was pleased to cosponsor Senator Kennedy's Student Loan Sunshine Act earlier this year and support the inclusion of those legislative provisions in this reauthorization bill.

The bill also includes language based on previous legislation I introduced that defines the terms ``different campus'' and ``different population'' for purposes of administering the Federal TRIO Program. I have long supported increased funding for TRIO Programs which provide education outreach services and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds as they pursue higher education. The language included in this bill ensures that higher education institutions with branch campuses geographically apart from each other can compete on equal footing for the important TRIO grants.

I am concerned that this bill may not adequately protect the privacy of individuals whose information is contained in Federal and State databases. Almost a year ago, I wrote to the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education regarding the Commission's first draft report which contained language proposing the creation of a national student unit record tracking system, and I questioned whether such a system, if created, could adequately protect the privacy interests of the students it would be tracking. The bill, while purporting to prohibit such systems, exempts any existing data systems that are used to operate programs authorized by the act, as well as any successor systems. Moreover, while the bill includes provisions to restrict access to the National Student Loan Data System, it includes no similar provisions for other Federal databases.

The bill also includes a pilot grant program to develop State-level postsecondary student data systems in five States. Grant recipients must comply with the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which prohibits certain policies and practices relating to disclosure of information; however, I believe additional protections may be necessary to ensure individual privacy. I plan to work with my colleagues on these matters as the bill moves forward.

Mr. President, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was one of the key Great Society programs that sought to extend the opportunity to pursue higher education to Americans of all backgrounds, regardless of their economic circumstances. With Senate passage of both the Higher Education Act today and the Higher Education Access Act of 2007 last week, we have acted to continue and expand upon these essential college access programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks and years to continue to support and strengthen higher education programs. In an increasingly global and competitive 21st century, ensuring access to higher education for all Americans who wish to pursue it must remain a priority in Congress for many years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Robert M. La Follette, Sr. This week, on June 14, people around my home State of Wisconsin will mark the 152nd anniversary of La Follette's birth. Throughout his life, La Follette was revered for his tireless service to the people of Wisconsin and to the people of the U.S. His dogged, full-steam-ahead approach to his life's work earned him the nickname ``Fighting Bob.''

Robert Marion La Follette, Sr., was born on June 14, 1855, in Primrose, a small town southwest of Madison in Dane County. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in

1879 and, after being admitted to the State bar, began his long career in public service as Dane County district attorney.

La Follette was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1884, and he served three terms as a member of that body, where he was a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

After losing his campaign for reelection in 1890, La Follette returned to Wisconsin and continued to serve the people of my state as a judge. Upon his exit from Washington DC, a reporter wrote, La Follette ``is popular at home, popular with his colleagues, and popular in the House. He is so good a fellow that even his enemies like him.''

He was elected the 20th Governor of Wisconsin in 1900. He served in that office until 1906, when he stepped down in order to serve the people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate, where he remained until his death in 1925.

As a founder of the national progressive movement, La Follette championed progressive causes as governor of Wisconsin and in the U.S. Congress. As governor, he advanced an agenda that included the country's first workers compensation system, direct election of U.S. Senators, and railroad rate and tax reforms. Collectively, these reforms would become known as the ``Wisconsin Idea.'' As governor, La Follette also supported cooperation between the state and the University of Wisconsin.

His terms in the House of Representatives and the Senate were spent fighting for women's rights, working to limit the power of monopolies, and opposing pork barrel legislation. La Follette also advocated electoral reforms, and he brought his support of the direct election of U.S. Senators to this body. His efforts were brought to fruition with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Fighting Bob also worked tirelessly to hold the Government accountable, and was a key figure in exposing the Teapot Dome Scandal.

La Follette earned the respect of such notable Americans as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Harriet Tubman Upton for making civil rights one of his trademark issues. At a speech before the 1886 graduating class of Howard University, La Follette said, ``We are one people, one by truth, one almost by blood. Our lives run side by side, our ashes rest in the same soil. [Seize] the waiting world of opportunity. Separatism is snobbish stupidity, it is supreme folly, to talk of non-contact, or exclusion!''

La Follette ran for President three times, twice as a Republican and once on the Progressive ticket. In 1924, as the Progressive candidate for President, La Follette garnered more than 17 percent of the popular vote and carried the State of Wisconsin.

La Follette's years of public service were not without controversy. In 1917, he filibustered a bill to allow the arming of U.S. merchant ships in response to a series of German submarine attacks. His filibuster was successful in blocking passage of this bill in the closing hours of the 64th Congress. Soon after, La Follette was one of only six Senators who voted against U.S. entry into World War I.

Fighting Bob was outspoken in his belief that the right to free speech did not end when war began. In the fall of 1917, La Follette gave a speech about the war in Minnesota, and he was misquoted in press reports as saying that he supported the sinking of the Lusitania. The Wisconsin State Legislature condemned his supposed statement as treason, and some of La Follette's Senate colleagues introduced a resolution to expel him. In response to this action, he delivered his seminal floor address, ``Free Speech in Wartime,'' on October 16, 1917. If you listen closely, you can almost hear his strong voice echoing through this chamber as he said: ``Mr. President, our government, above all others, is founded on the right of the people freely to discuss all matters pertaining to their government, in war not less than in peace, for in this government, the people are the rulers in war no less than in peace.''

Of the expulsion petition filed against him, La Follette said:

I am aware, Mr. President, that in pursuance of this

general campaign of vilification and attempted intimidation,

requests from various individuals and certain organizations

have been submitted to the Senate for my expulsion from this

body, and that such requests have been referred to and

considered by one of the Committees of the Senate.

If I alone had been made the victim of these attacks, I

should not take one moment of the Senate's time for their

consideration, and I believe that other Senators who have

been unjustly and unfairly assailed, as I have been, hold the

same attitude upon this that I do. Neither the clamor of the

mob nor the voice of power will ever turn me by the breadth

of a hair from the course I mark out for myself, guided by

such knowledge as I can obtain and controlled and directed by

a solemn conviction of right and duty.

This powerful speech led to a Senate investigation of whether La Follette's conduct constituted treason. In 1919, following the end of World War I, the Senate dropped its investigation and reimbursed La Follette for the legal fees he incurred as a result of the expulsion petition and corresponding investigation. This incident is indicative of Fighting Bob's commitment to his ideals and of his tenacious spirit.

La Follette died on June 18, 1925, in Washington, DC., while serving Wisconsin in this body. His daughter noted, ``His passing was mysteriously peaceful for one who had stood so long on the battle line.'' Mourners visited the Wisconsin Capitol to view his body, and paid respects in a crowd nearing 50,000 people. La Follette's son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., was appointed to his father's seat, and went on to be elected in his own right and to serve in this body for more than 20 years, following the progressive path blazed by his father.

La Follette has been honored a number of times for his unwavering commitment to his ideals and for his service to the people of Wisconsin and of the U.S.

During the 109th Congress, I was proud to support Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin that named the post office at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard in Madison in La Follette's honor. I commend Congresswomen Baldwin for her efforts to pass that bill and I am pleased she is introducing House companion measures of the legislation I am introducing today in the Senate.

The Library of Congress recognized La Follette in 1985 by naming the Congressional Research Service reading room in the Madison Building in honor of both Fighting Bob and his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., for their shared commitment to the development of a legislative research service to support the U.S. Congress. In his autobiography, Fighting Bob noted that, as governor of Wisconsin, he ``made it a . . . policy to bring all the reserves of knowledge and inspiration of the university more fully to the service of the people. . . . Many of the university staff are now in State service, and a bureau of investigation and research established as a legislative reference library . . . has proved of the greatest assistance to the legislature in furnishing the latest and best thought of the advanced students of Government in this and other countries.'' He went on to call this service ``a model which the Federal government and ultimately every state in the union will follow.'' Thus, the legislative reference service that La Follette created in Madison served as the basis for his work to create the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress.

The La Follette Reading Room was dedicated on March 5, 1985, the 100th anniversary of Fighting Bob being sworn in for his first term as a Member of Congress.

Across this magnificent Capitol in National Statuary Hall, Fighting Bob is forever immortalized in white marble, still proudly representing the state of Wisconsin. His statue resides in the Old House Chamber, now known as National Statuary Hall, among those of other notable figures who have made their marks in American history. One of the few seated statues is that of Fighting Bob. Though he is sitting, he is shown with one foot forward, and one hand on the arm of his chair, as if he is about to leap to his feet and begin a robust speech.

When then-Senator John F. Kennedy's five-member Special Committee on the Senate Reception Room chose La Follette as one of the ``Five Outstanding Senators'' whose portraits would hang outside of this chamber in the Senate reception room, he was described as being a ``ceaseless battler for

the underprivileged'' and a ``courageous independent.'' Today, his painting still hangs just outside this chamber, where it bears witness to the proceedings of this body--and, perhaps, challenges his successors here to continue fighting for the social and government reforms he championed.

Mr. President, to honor Robert M. La Follette, Sr., during the week of the anniversary of his birth, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the senior Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl; the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy; and the junior Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown.

I am introducing a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins to commemorate Fighting Bob's life and legacy. The second bill that I am introducing today, 1864, would authorize the President to posthumously award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The minting of a commemorative coin and the awarding of the Congressional Gold Medal would be fitting tributes to the memory of Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and to his deeply held beliefs and long record of service to his state and to his country. I hope that my colleagues will support these proposals.

Let us never forget Robert M. La Follette, Sr.'s character, his integrity, his deep commitment to Progressive causes, and his unwillingness to waver from doing what he thought was right. The Senate has known no greater champion of the common man and woman, no greater enemy of corruption and cronyism, than ``Fighting Bob'' La Follette, and it is an honor to speak in the same chamber, and serve the same great state, as he did.

Madam President, I speak today in support of the Higher Education Access Act of 2007, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will increase student aid by billions of dollars by curbing Federal subsidies to private banks and lenders. This is a significant victory for students around the country and in my State of Wisconsin, which will receive over $270 million dollars in new need-based grant aid by the year 2013. Wisconsin has a world-class higher education system, and I am pleased to support this much-needed legislation that will help open the doors to college for more students in my State.

I have long supported and led efforts in Congress to expand the availability of student aid and ensure that qualified students have access to a postsecondary education, including raising the individual Pell grant award. I was pleased to join with my colleagues in February to pass a significant increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $4,310 from $4,050, the first increase in 4 years. Earlier this year, I also joined with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy,

Collins, and Coleman, to lead letters to both the Budget and Appropriations Committees that advocated for the highest possible increase in funding for Pell grants. The Pell grant program provides need-based aid to low income students, and I am pleased that the Higher Education Access Act retains the Pell grant's focus on need-based aid for low-income students.

Access to a higher education is increasingly important in the competitive, global environment of the 21st century workforce as an increasing number of jobs require education or training beyond high school. But while the importance of attending college continues to increase, the cost of attending college also continues to increase, which often causes financial strain on students and their families as they seek to finance the cost of higher education.

My colleagues and I have long fought against the declining purchasing power of the Pell grant by supporting substantial increases in the maximum grant award. According to data from the Department of Education, the maximum Pell grant covered half the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at public 4-year colleges 20 years ago but only covered a third of these same costs during the 2005 to 2006 period. The declining power of the Pell has impacted my State of Wisconsin as well. In 1986 to 1987, the $2,100 maximum Pell grant covered 58 percent of college costs for Wisconsin students. In 2005-06, the $4,050 maximum Pell grant only covered 38% of college costs in Wisconsin. This legislation seeks to address the declining purchasing power of the Pell grant by funding new Promise grants which will supplement the Pell grant awards received by students throughout the country and target need-based funds to Pell-eligible students.

In addition to the declining purchasing power of need-based aid like Pell, the availability of such need-based grant aid does not come close to meeting the demand for it. As a result, an increasing number of students turn to Federal and private loans to finance their education. According to the College Board, in the late 1970s, over three-fourths of the Federal aid to students were grants, while 20 percent of Federal student aid were loans. Recent data from the College Board indicates that the breakdown between grant aid and loans had switched by 2006, with grant aid only making up 20 percent of the federal student aid.

Students in my State of Wisconsin, like students in other parts of the country, are greatly affected by the Federal Government's increased reliance on student loans at the expense of grant aid. The Project on Student Debt reports that more than 60 percent of Wisconsin graduates in 2005 graduated with debt and the average student who graduated from a 4-year college in my State in 2005 owed over $17,000. While the prospect of these large debt burdens impact many students' decisions about whether to attend college, low-income students may be even less inclined to attend college if they have to take out large amounts of student loans. These students are understandably nervous about the significant debt burden they would have to undertake, and some students choose to forego college altogether for this very reason. This legislation's focus on increasing need-based grant aid for these very students takes a big step in the right direction toward promoting better access to higher education for low-income students.

Higher levels of debt can also influence the decisions students make about whether to take a job in the public interest sector or in the more-lucrative private sector after graduation. We have all heard about students who are interested in working in public interest jobs fields like teaching, law enforcement, legal aid, or State and local government but who decide against taking these public interest jobs because of their high debt loads. It is unfortunate that so many students are forced to consider their debt loads when deciding which jobs to take or pursue. The loan forgiveness and income-based repayment provisions of this legislation will help those graduating students in Wisconsin and around the country who want to pursue careers in public service.

While I applaud much of the policy included in this measure, I am disappointed that we are again seeing the reconciliation process used to advance legislation that is not primarily a deficit-reduction package. While there are better arguments for using reconciliation to consider this particular bill than there were for the reconciliation protection proposed for the legislation to open up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, I am still troubled by the use of this extraordinary procedure as a way to advance a significant policy change that is not primarily a deficit reduction package. Thanks to the efforts of our Budget Committee chairman, Senator Conrad, the days when the reconciliation process could be totally subverted to protect legislation that actually worsened the deficit are over. I also commend Chairman Conrad for insisting during the conference discussions on the budget resolution that this particular reconciliation instruction move closer to a more reasonable qualifying threshold of deficit reduction than was initially proposed. I hope that in future budget resolutions, we can further tighten the use of reconciliation to ensure that it is used for what it was intended, namely to advance significant deficit reduction.

A student's access to higher education should not depend on his or her family's income but, rather, on the student's desire to obtain a higher education. Passage of the Higher Education Access Act of 2007 moves our Nation in the right direction and represents a great victory for students in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. I have long led and supported efforts to expand Federal higher education programs, including Pell and TRIO, and I am pleased to support passage of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months and years to continue to expand important need-based grant programs so that hard-working students will be able to take advantage of the full opportunities that access to a higher education offers.