[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11784-S11792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3010, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2006 and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Specter amendment No. 2197, to reduce administrative costs 
     in the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2197

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to vitiate the yeas and nays on 
amendment No. 2197 and proceed to adopt the amendment by voice vote at 
this time. I cleared this matter with Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2197.
  The amendment (No. 2197) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before Senator Durbin begins, may I again 
remind my colleagues at the conclusion of this debate, which I would 
expect to be somewhere in the nature of 20 minutes, we will proceed to 
a rollcall vote. We expect it to be 15 and 5, limited to 20 minutes, 
and then we are anxious to have other amendments offered to proceed at 
that time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the chairman yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the chairman, I believe this amendment may be 
noncontroversial. I do not know if there will be any time taken in 
opposition to the amendment. I would certainly be prepared to agree at 
10:45 the vote would take place, if that would be appropriate, and then 
I would explain the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Illinois for that statement. 
Perhaps we ought to just formalize it in a unanimous consent agreement 
that the vote will occur at 10:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2196

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2196, which is filed at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2196.

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
submit to Congress a plan for changing the numerical identifier used to 
      identify medicare beneficiaries under the medicare program)

       After section 221, insert the following:
       Sec. 222. Not later than June 30, 2006, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress a report outlining--
       (1) a detailed plan for expeditiously changing the 
     numerical identifier used to identify medicare beneficiaries 
     under the medicare program so that a beneficiary's social 
     security account number is no longer displayed on the 
     identification card issued to the beneficiary under such 
     program or on any explanation of medicare benefits mailed to 
     the beneficiary; and
       (2) the costs of implementing such plan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, according to the Federal Trade Commission, 
identity theft is the fastest growing crime in America, striking 27.3 
million Americans who have been victims in the last 5 years. Not only 
is identity theft increasing, it is becoming more expensive.
  Several years ago, I received a phone call from a credit agency at my 
home in Springfield, IL. They said: Richard Durbin, we knew that we 
would finally catch up with you.
  I said: What are you talking about?
  They said: It is your credit card charges with a major chain of 
stores that were incurred in Denver, CO.
  I said: I didn't incur any credit card charges.
  It turned out my identity had been stolen. It took some time, and I 
finally got it straightened out, but I was one of the lucky ones.
  Today's victims of identity theft spend an average of $1,400 in out-
of-pocket expenses to remedy their situation, an increase of 85 percent 
from years past.
  A recent survey indicates that identity theft cost Americans $52.6 
billion in 2004--much of it accrued by businesses forced to write-off 
fraudulent charges.
  According to the Federal Trade Commission, seniors are more 
vulnerable to fraud than other demographic groups.
  In 2004, consumers over the age of 50 reported $152 million in fraud 
losses to the FTC, which is likely only a small fraction of the fraud 
that took place.
  A Social Security number is a key for an identity thief. With it, he 
or she can open a new credit card or bank account, as well as access 
existing accounts.
  One of the main actions Federal, State and local governments instruct 
you to take in protecting yourself from identity theft is guarding your 
Social Security number.
  Many States and local governments have gone further to protect their 
citizens. Twelve States have passed laws restricting the use of Social 
Security numbers, including Illinois where private insurers are 
prohibited from using Social Security numbers as patient identifiers.
  Meanwhile, the Federal Government continues to print Social Security 
numbers on Medicare cards, leaving 40 million seniors with their Social 
Security numbers in plain sight.
  Almost one-third of identity thieves get access to your personal 
information by stealing your wallet, checkbook or credit card.
  If a senior's wallet is stolen, access to a Social Security number 
would be simple. Just look on their Medicare card.
  Walter Hornby from Bartlett, IL wrote to me to tell me about what he 
calls a ``Catch-22 situation.'' After he fell victim to identity theft, 
he was advised never to carry anything in his wallet that includes his 
Social Security number.
  Mr. Hornby wrote:

       All Medicare cards have Social Security numbers emblazoned 
     on them in large print. I am sure many seniors carry their 
     cards with them as proof of insurance, leaving them open to 
     identity theft.

  Mr. Hornby called CMS and the Social Security Administration, but was 
told it would ``take an act of Congress to correct this situation.'' 
That is why we are here today.
  According to a recent poll by the AARP, most seniors agree with Mr. 
Hornby. What is the percent of adults over the age of 50 who want 
Social Security numbers to appear on various documents? They asked of 
these seniors, How about Medicare cards? Yes, 25 percent; no, 70 
percent. Seniors get it. They understand their vulnerability, but they 
don't know which way to turn. You need a Medicare card if you go to a 
hospital or provider. They want to have easy access, but there sits 
their Social Security number which could turn out making them 
vulnerable to identity theft.
  A reporter asked a CMS spokesperson about whether the agency plans to 
change beneficiary identity numbers as a result of the rise of identity 
theft from seniors, and here is what he said:

       We're looking at all sorts of alternatives, but right now 
     our greatest priority is implementing the prescription drug 
     program. We

[[Page S11785]]

     continue to recommend treating your Social Security card like 
     a credit card.

  That is a good recommendation. But if you lose your wallet or your 
purse, you know what might happen. When seniors write to CMS asking to 
have their Social Security number removed from Medicare documents, CMS 
sends a reply:

       Medicare is required to protect individual privacy and 
     confidentiality in accordance with applicable laws.

  CMS is passing the buck. The buck stops here. It stops in Congress. 
We are abiding by the current law, they say, and that is good enough. 
But it really is not good enough.
  Bob Filner is a Congressman from San Diego, and he is a person with 
whom I worked and respect very much. He was attentive to this issue and 
raised it in consideration of this appropriations bill in the House. 
Congressman Filner said, in very simple and straightforward language: 
No money can be spent on this bill to further issue these Medicare 
cards that contain Social Security numbers.
  The amendment passed with a strong bipartisan vote. But if you look 
at it, we are afraid that perhaps it went too far--in the right 
direction but maybe too far. The CMS said there is no way they could 
cut off immediately the issuance of these cards. So we are placed in a 
difficult position. We know the problem, and we want to correct it. 
Cutting off funds and trying to do it immediately may be something that 
is just unmanageable and cannot be achieved.
  My amendment would require the CMS to send a report to Congress by 
the end of next June outlining how the agency will expeditiously go 
about changing the system of patient identifiers and how much it will 
cost. We put the CMS on notice that this is a problem they need to help 
us solve. They can't pass the buck off to another year and another year 
of possible identity theft for so many senior citizens.
  It is time for the Federal Government to step up the fight against 
identity theft. We have it in our power to make it much harder for 
identity thieves who hurt our Nation's seniors, and I commend amendment 
No. 2196, which I have introduced at this point, to all my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle and ask for their bipartisan support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Illinois is a good amendment. What has happened here is that the House-
passed version of the bill requires the Centers for Medicaid and 
Medicare Services to remove Social Security numbers immediately in 
order to prevent identity theft. When the Senator from Illinois 
outlines the problems on identity theft, he is exactly right. The 
Judiciary Committee, on which both Senator Durbin and I sit, has 
legislation pending now to deal with identity theft in a comprehensive 
way. But the substance of what Senator Durbin seeks is very sound.
  CMS has advised that it is impossible to administer the House-passed 
amendment in its present form, which would require immediate removal. 
The amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois is a compromise to 
achieve greater protection against identity theft. It essentially calls 
for a study to give us an opportunity to work it out in a way that CMS 
can handle. I think the amendment is a good one, and it is agreeable to 
this side of the aisle as well.
  We are going to proceed to a vote--candidly, so we can get some focus 
of attention on this bill. Our staffs have called around to the offices 
of all Senators seeking amendments. We have a long list of prospective 
amendments, but our experience has been that unless we have a vote 
where Senators come to the well of the Senate, which gives the managers 
an opportunity to talk to the many Senators who have stated an interest 
in offering an amendment--unless we proceed in that way, that we have 
protracted quorum calls without any amendments being offered.
  So as previously announced, at 10:45, by the unanimous consent 
agreement, we will proceed to a vote. Again, I repeat, it will be a 20-
minute vote: 15 minutes under the rule, and a limited extension of 5 
minutes.
  We have 2 minutes until the 10:45 vote is scheduled. In the interim, 
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Corzine
     Shelby
       
  The amendment (No. 2196) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleagues for the promptness on that vote. 
The report was made to cut off the vote at 1 minute 6 seconds in excess 
of the 20 minutes, which is pretty good for voting in this Senate. We 
will hold the votes to 20 minutes.
  We have the Senator from Massachusetts lined up to offer an amendment 
on Pell grants. We anticipate voting on it at 2:15, but they will have 
time before the customary adjournment at 12:30 for the policy luncheons 
to start debate on another amendment.
  I have talked to a number of Senators about offering an amendment if 
that opportunity presents itself. We do want to push ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2213

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2213.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase the maximum Federal Pell Grant award by $200 to 
                                $4,250)

       At the end of title III (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act, there is appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $836,000,000 for 
     carrying out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070). Such additional 
     appropriation shall be used to increase the maximum Pell 
     Grant for which a student shall be eligible during

[[Page S11786]]

     award year 2006-2007 by $200 to $4,250, notwithstanding the 
     maximum Pell Grant amount provided under the heading 
     ``Student Financial Assistance'' under this title.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a very modest amendment. It is 
targeted to a program which is a lifeline to millions of hard-working 
American families in the form of education--the Pell grant. The Pell 
grant is the major instrument by which the Federal Government provides 
help and assistance to needy families in this country. The median 
income among families who benefit from the grant is about $24,000 a 
year and the median income of independent students who receive the 
grant is less than $13,000 per year. These families need help and 
assistance in going to college.
  This particular amendment will raise the Pell grant from $4,050 to 
$4,250. The cost of the amendment is approximately $800 million.
  I remind our colleagues of one of the great statements made in this 
country by an American Founding Father, John Adams, whose 270th 
birthday we celebrate this week. He was the architect of the 
Massachusetts State Constitution, written in 1780. Many of the ideas 
from that constitution have been accepted in constitutions all over the 
country. The one aspect that has been replicated in every State 
constitution is the State's commitment to educating children. It is 
said so well in the Massachusetts Constitution:

       It will reward its patron and benefactors by shedding its 
     benign influence on the public minds. Laws for the liberal 
     education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, 
     are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and 
     generous mind no expense for this purpose would be thought 
     extravagant.

  That is what this amendment says. We are saying this Nation, at this 
time, cannot afford to lose these young minds. We have 400,000 young 
Americans who are qualified and would be accepted to 4-year colleges on 
the basis of their academic records if they had the resources to be 
able to attend. It is an indictment of our Nation if we fail to provide 
these young people with an opportunity to receive an education, 
participate in our society, and give something back to our country. We 
cannot afford to lose them. The Pell grant is the indispensable link 
between these families and an education.
  This Nation has always responded when challenged in the areas of 
education. In response to the Industrial Revolution, we made a national 
commitment to expand access to high schools, and America prospered. It 
was an extraordinary commitment and has made an extraordinary 
difference in the success of this Nation, both commercially and 
militarily.
  At the time of World War II, we had 12 to 14 million Americans who 
served--many for 3, 5, 6, 7 years--in the Armed Forces of our country. 
When they returned, President Roosevelt offered the GI bill. That would 
open the doors of opportunity for education. For all who came back from 
World War II, who had been out fighting for our Nation, they would have 
the benefits of an education. By the millions, they took advantage of 
the GI bill.
  In reviewing the investment made by this Government, the figures show 
for every $1 invested in education, it was returned seven times by 
those who received or benefitted from the GI bill. We extended 
education benefits in the time of the Vietnam war. Also, when 
challenged technologically in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik--we had a 
Republican President, Democratic Congress--we recognized the need to 
dramatically improve math and science achievement in this country. We 
passed the National Defense Education Act to strengthen both our 
national security and our global competitiveness, and the Federal 
investment in education doubled, with a strong focus on math and 
science education.
  At that time the Federal Government was spending 5 cents out of every 
$1 on education. Now we are at 1\1/2\ cents, and going south. Do we 
understand that? Only 1\1/2\ cents out of every Federal dollar is spent 
on education, and we are going, effectively, south. I think this is not 
the kind of priority the American people expect and the American people 
want. This is a very modest amendment, especially against that 
background. The amendment raises the maximum Pell grant by $200.
  Let me first show what has happened to the Pell grant over the period 
of recent years. Some of us remember the great debates we had in the 
1960s. One of the principal issues in the 1960 campaign was: Should we 
provide help and assistance to young people in the form of education? 
That was heavily debated in the Presidential debates at that time. A 
judgment and decision was made when the votes were in and President 
Kennedy won. One of the first things he did was submit a higher 
education bill, which was eventually passed in 1965.
  There was a great debate at that time: Should we provide help and 
assistance to the child or should we provide help and assistance to the 
university? The decision was made that we would provide it to the young 
student so the student would have the flexibility to be able to go to 
the college of their choice.
  In 1965, when the higher education bill was passed, the Federal 
funding for education was close to 80 percent in grants and 20 percent 
in loans, for students who qualified for grants. Those were families in 
the lowest income bracket. The Pell grant was used extensively and 
benefitted millions of young people.
  This chart shows what has happened with the Pell grant between 1985 
and 2005. It shows the shrinking buying power of the Pell grant over 
the past 20 years. We find that during the 1985-1986 school year the 
maximum Pell grant covered 57 percent of the cost of attendance at a 4-
year public institution. We see, as the cost of education has gone up, 
that the purchasing power of the Pell grant has steadily declined. In 
the 2005-2006 school year the maximum grant covers only 33 percent of 
the cost of college attendance.
  Look at this. This is a chart that shows the gap between the maximum 
Pell grant and the cost of attending college, which continues to 
increase. This is a reflection of the gradual increase in tuition over 
the recent years, from 2001 and 2002 up to 2005 and 2006. This shows 
the gap--now nearly $8,100. Here, this green line shows the maximum 
Pell grant which has been effectively stable during that period of 
time, while the cost of attending a 4-year public college has been 
going up and up and up, putting enormous pressure on these families who 
have limited opportunities and resources.
  The Federal Government provides Pell grants. It provides Stafford 
loans. States and local communities also provide help and assistance to 
students. Here is an indication of what is happening in our States. 
This chart reflects the State and local funding per full-time student 
at public institutions, which has declined some 16 percent since 2001.
  What all of this says is that the purchasing power of the Pell grant 
has gone down. There are hundreds of thousands of children who are not 
going to college because they are unable to afford it. We have seen 
that the help and assistance given to needy students has dropped at the 
State and local levels, but the costs have been continuing to go higher 
and higher.
  This amendment requires a judgment and decision about a nation's 
priorities: whether we believe, as a nation, in the importance of 
supporting education and making education available to all young 
people, and for which we are prepared to support this very modest 
increase.
  It is useful to make a judgment based upon what we think we need here 
in the United States. But it is also relevant to get some idea about 
what is happening in other countries that are increasingly competing 
with the American economy. Here is an example. The numbers of 
engineering graduates in China and India far outpace that of the United 
States. In China, it is 600,000; in India, 350,000; in the United 
States, 70,000, and many of these are foreign students who, more likely 
than not, will be returning to their home countries.
  We cannot expect to have a first-rate economy with a second-rate 
educational system. It does not work that way. Not only will we not 
have a first-rate economy, but we will not have a first-rate military 
with a second-rate educational system.
  This is not going to be the answer to all of our problems in terms of 
education. Later in the debate we consider other amendments to increase 
support for education and to improve math and science achievement. But 
this amendment is essential to ensuring every

[[Page S11787]]

American has an opportunity to go to college.
  Fewer and fewer good jobs are available for those without a college 
education. When I first came to the Senate, the greatest employer down 
in Quincy, Massachusetts was the Quincy Shipyard. I would say 90 
percent of those workers had a high school education. They had a pretty 
good middle-class life. They worked hard. They got some time off to 
spend with their families. More often than not, they would be able to 
take a couple weeks with their children over the course of the 
summertime. There was a great sense of community. There was great 
involvement in all of the activities in the community, and people were 
able to make a very decent and good living, just as their parents had, 
working at that Quincy Fore River Shipyard.
  Generally speaking, if you look back 40 or 45 years ago, an 
individual had one job. More often than not, they kept that job their 
whole life. Now we know that workers entering the workforce today will 
have eight or nine different jobs during their lifetimes. Investing in 
education and continuing training has to be a lifelong national 
commitment.

  This particular amendment is focused on those who are just entering 
the educational process after they get out of high school and those who 
are from low-income families. We need the skills of those young people. 
We cannot, as a nation, afford to let those skills go untapped. We 
cannot effectively write off a whole segment of our Nation because it's 
too expensive to go on into higher education. And too often, that is 
what is happening.
  We have all seen the statistics about the increased cost of gasoline, 
the increased cost of prescription drugs, the increased cost of energy, 
particularly in my part of the country. We have talked about that and 
debated it here in the last few weeks.
  But we have also seen at other times that those in the basic middle 
income, even though they have seen very dramatic increases in 
productivity, in what they have been able to produce, have not seen a 
significant increase in their wages or in their family income over the 
period of these past years. That is a fact. That has been a reality. So 
there is increasing pressure.
  We find out that even for those families who are able to patch 
together the means to get to college, even with the Pell grants today, 
more often than not, it takes the average family--even with their 
limited ability to borrow--over 20 years to pay back those loans that 
were needed to meet the cost of getting their child into higher 
education.
  We are trying to say to Americans, to children of hard-working 
American people, that we recognize that education is a key to 
opportunity in this country. Our chart demonstrates the difference 
between the lifetime earnings of individuals with college degrees and 
those without them $1 million over a lifetime.
  A key value in our society is fairness. The reality is, we, as a 
country, can well afford--in the richest nation in the world--to offer 
a helping hand to those who have limited incomes in the form of Pell 
grants. So this is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of opportunity.
  It is also a question of competitiveness. If we do not have a solid 
educational system, we are not going to be a first-rate nation 
commercially or militarily. At a time when we are feeling the 
increasing forces of world competition, we see what is happening in 
other countries. Now we are not just exporting blue-collar jobs out of 
the heartland of our Nation; we are finding, increasingly, that high-
tech jobs are not only moving out, but that many of our high-tech 
industries are moving out to take advantage of the training and 
education in other countries, particularly in India, and other places 
in the world.
  So it is about fairness. It is about opportunity. It is about 
competition.
  Finally, as I mentioned, it is about national security. We need to 
have in our military the best-trained, best-led troops. But they also 
need the best in terms of technology. This requires well-trained and 
educated personnel. Unless we have a talented pool of college 
graduates, our military, our intelligence community, all of our 
employers, and our Nation are going to suffer. And we won't have that 
talented pool unless we provide opportunities for our young people. 
This amendment takes a step in the right direction.
  Mr. President, $200 does not sound like a lot when we are talking 
about the billions of dollars in this budget. But today we know that a 
$200 increase in student aid would mean that hundreds of thousands of 
students would be able to afford college. Two hundred dollars does not 
sound like a lot, but it is a lot to low-income families. It is a lot 
for millions of working families, as they are looking at their bills 
and trying to make adjustments and trying to make college a priority. 
It is a lot, and it is something we ought to respond to in this 
particular appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Kennedy, in offering an amendment to increase the 
maximum Pell grant award by $200. If approved, this amendment would 
result in a $4,250 maximum Pell grant--an amount well below what is 
needed, but still important in addressing the crisis of lack of college 
affordability.
  The College Board reports that students in the college class of 2010 
will pay more, on average, for their post-secondary education than any 
other class in American history. The average 4-year private school now 
costs $21,235 each year and the average 4-year public institution costs 
$5,491 a year. And every year college costs are increasing at a rate 
faster than inflation. Last year the Consumer Price Index increased by 
5.2 percent. But the cost of private 4-year schools went up 5.9 percent 
and public schools went up 7.1 percent.
  A Pell grant increase is a step in the right direction to make 
college more affordable. Over the last few decades, college financial 
aid simply hasn't kept up with the rising cost of attendance. Twenty 
years ago, in the 1985-1986 school year, the maximum Federal Pell grant 
covered nearly 60 percent of the cost of the tuition, fees, room, and 
board of a 4-year public university. Today the maximum Pell grant 
covers less than 40 percent of those costs. More students take out 
loans and more are falling into debt. Fifty percent of today's college 
students graduate in debt, owing an average of $15,500. Many students 
owe even more. At Pace University in New York, 55 percent of students 
graduate owing an average $28,695. At New York University the debtloads 
are alarmingly similar. And at Hartwick College, nestled in the 
foothills of the Catskills Mountains, 72 percent of students graduate 
owing an average of $31,206, the second heaviest student debt-burden of 
any liberal arts college in the Nation.
  Over the next 6 months, students in America's high school class of 
2006 will decide whether or not to go to college. We need to make sure 
that students can afford college, not frighten them with a mountain of 
debt.
  More and more, a college degree is essential in our modern economy. 
And helping students pay for college pays for itself. According to the 
College Board, the average college graduate earns 73 percent more over 
his or her lifetime than the average high school graduate. College 
graduates pay 78 percent more in taxes to public coffers, and they are 
less likely to draw on public resources for programs like unemployment 
insurance, food stamps, and welfare. College graduates are less likely 
to be incarcerated, and more likely to volunteer in their communities, 
more likely to vote, more likely to raise kids ready for school, and 
more likely to start businesses that create jobs.
  We need to make sure every student who wants to go can afford 
college. It's good social policy to make higher education affordable, 
it's good economic policy, and it's good budgetary policy. Increasing 
the maximum Pell grant is an essential part of making college 
affordable. So, again, I want to thank Senator Kennedy for raising this 
critical issue and working with me to offer this amendment and I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Kennedy amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, which will 
increase the maximum Pell grant by $200--increasing the current $4,050 
maximum award to $4,250. This modest increase is crucial to our efforts 
to ensure equality of access to higher education for all students.

[[Page S11788]]

  The Pell Grant program is the largest need-related post-secondary 
student grant program administered by the Department of Education. 
However, for three consecutive years the maximum award has remained 
stagnant, accounting for less than 40 percent of the costs of attending 
a public, four year institution. Pell grant recipients have a median 
family income of only $15,200, so these grants truly target the most 
needy students. This amendment would provide an additional $10 million 
in need based aid to Wisconsin and give 1,360 new students the 
opportunity to make the dream of higher education a reality. Our 
Nation's well-being depends on our ability to provide greater access to 
higher education, regardless of financial means. I hope my colleagues 
will support this important amendment and provide the funding that our 
students need to succeed.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator yields back.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have listened to the presentation by 
the Senator from Massachusetts, and I do not disagree with anything he 
said. When he talks about the need for more education funding, I agree 
with him. When he talks about the importance for the productivity of 
the United States on the economics sphere, when he talks about the 
importance of education for military preparedness, he makes very valid 
points. And when he talks about fairness, those are very important 
considerations.
  I applaud the work he has done in the field of education over his 
very distinguished career. He served for many years as chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and now he 
is the ranking member. He has addressed these issues of education 
funding year in and year out with logic and passion.
  As chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, the job I have, and 
our subcommittee does, and that of our excellent staff, is to make 
allocations, with a budget of $145 billion, as to where we are going to 
allocate the money.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has asked for an increase of $836 
million, but there is no offset. That means he has not found something 
in a budget of $145 billion which would pay for his amendment which 
would increase Pell grants by $836 million. I would like to increase 
Pell grants by $836 million myself. The fact is, I would like to 
increase them by more than that, if I could make the allocation. But 
the subcommittee is limited by what its allocation is and what the 
budget resolution provides. That is $145 billion to allocate among all 
the education programs sponsored by the Federal Government, all of the 
health programs sponsored by the Federal Government, all of the 
programs of the Department of Labor, and about $10, $11 billion on 
related agencies.
  It is important to note that this budget contains $812 million over 
last year's budget. So that in looking at the Pell grants and in coming 
to a total figure of $13.177 billion, a very significant increase of 
$812 million over last year which is hard to find in this budget. But 
that is as far as we could stretch to provide the money.
  When you talk about Pell grants, this has been a very high priority 
item for this Senator. I took over the chairmanship of the subcommittee 
after Republicans took control of the Senate in 1994. In 1995, the Pell 
grant awards were $2,340. We have increased them every year: from 
$2,340 in 1995 to $2,470 in 1996; to $2,700 in 1997; to $3,000 in 1998; 
to $3,125 in 1999; to $3,300 in the year 2000; $3,750 in 2001; $4,000 
in 2002, and $4,050 in 2003. We had to maintain it at the same level in 
2004; in 2005, the same. That is where we stand. We had to allocate 
last year $4.3 billion to pay off an estimated shortfall in the Pell 
grants. So we have paid a lot of attention to Pell grants and have put 
this on a very high priority basis.
  There are quite a number of other programs in our education budget 
which are directed to the same kinds of considerations so eloquently 
articulated by the Senator from Massachusetts. Student loans are a very 
big point. This is well known. I think it is worth noting that the new 
student loan volume for 2006 fiscal year is in excess of $62 billion, 
which is $10 billion over the amount which was available in fiscal year 
2004.
  It is also important to note that there are a number of other 
programs which are directed to the same beneficiaries who are 
recipients of the Pell grants. We have, for example, $805 million for 
the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, which is an 
increase of $26 million. We have $66 million for loan cancellations. 
The Perkins loan program supports more than $1 billion in low-interest 
loans to undergraduate students, and there is funding for loan 
cancellations. We have $990 million in the Federal Work-Study Program. 
We have over $65 million for Leveraging Education Assistant Partnership 
programs. We have quite a number of programs.
  Tax credits and deductions in 2006 are valued at a savings of $3.2 
billion for students and families through the HOPE Scholarship tax 
credit; $2.1 billion under the Lifetime Learning Credit; $1.8 billion 
for the above-the-line deduction on higher education expenses; and $810 
million in deductions for interest paid on student loans.
  These are a variety of programs which are targeted and directed at 
people who need help, who have loans, who can't pay their loans. None 
of that is to say that the Pell grants are not vital and that we 
wouldn't be in a preferable position nationally if we had the funds to 
increase the Pell grants.
  If the Senator from Massachusetts or anyone has any idea as to how to 
stretch these dollars further, I am interested to hear. If anybody has 
an idea of increasing funding in any particular line as a priority over 
some of the other $145 billion we have in this bill, I would be 
interested to hear and weigh that too. But on the basis of this record, 
we have stretched the dollars as far as we can. As much as I agree with 
everything the Senator from Massachusetts has said, and as much as I 
would like to raise the Pell grants, the budget resolution does not 
give me, as chairman, the discretion to do so.
  For the edification of anybody who may be watching on C-SPAN 2, 
listening to this debate--and I have at least a few relatives 
listening--the next movement is to raise a point of order, although 
this may not be the appropriate time with further debate to take place. 
But I do think it is in order now to propound a unanimous consent 
request which will formalize the informal agreement which Senator 
Kennedy and I arrived at earlier for 2:15 vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to the Kennedy amendment on Pell grants; provided 
further, that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to 
that vote and that no second degree be in order to the amendment prior 
to the vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. We may consume all the time until 12:30, but there is a 
possibility that we may not. So if any other Senator has an amendment 
to offer, I urge that Senator to come to the floor at this time so that 
we can utilize all of the floor time for debate on this important bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Hampshire on 
the floor. As I understand, he wanted to be able to offer amendments.
  Mr. SUNUNU. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That would not upset the current situation. I am glad to 
yield to him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 2214

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, as the Senator from Massachusetts 
indicated, I would like to rise very briefly to offer two amendments 
and then allow the Senator from Massachusetts to continue with the 
remarks on his own amendment. I will offer a few remarks, but hopefully 
we can work out the issues that might exist on these two amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside that 
I might call up amendment No. 2214.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2214.


[[Page S11789]]


  Mr. SUNUNU. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for the funding of the Low-Vision Rehabilitation 
                    Services Demonstration Project)

       After section 221, insert the following:
       Sec. 222. For carrying out the Low-Vision Rehabilitation 
     Services Demonstration Project by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, an additional $5,000,000: Provided, That 
     funds made available for general department management under 
     the heading General Department Management under the heading 
     Office of the Secretary are reduced by $5,000,000.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this amendment calls for $5 million to be 
allocated to a vision rehabilitation therapy demonstration program 
under Medicare. It is an amendment that is fully offset. This is a 
demonstration program that was established under report language 
crafted by Chairman Specter last year. This is an opportunity to give 
seniors additional independence by helping to cover some of the cost of 
vision rehabilitation therapy for those who have vision impairment. It 
helps them to do the very basic things of getting around their home, 
getting outside the home, doing errands. By maintaining this 
independence by dealing with vision problems, we reduce the risk of 
injury and the costs of injuries associated with vision impairment.
  As I indicated, it is offset. It is an existing program. This 
additional $5 million in funding would ensure that the demonstration is 
conducted across a number of States, a number of cities, so that CMS 
has the data it needs to judge the efficacy of the program.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2215

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending 
amendments aside, and I call up amendment No. 2215.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2215.

  Mr. SUNUNU. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To increase funding for community health centers)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Amounts appropriated in this title for community 
     health center programs under section 330 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b) shall be increased by 
     $198,560,000. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, amounts appropriated under this Act shall be reduced on 
     a pro rata basis by $198,560,000.

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this second amendment deals with community 
health center funding. Community health centers have been supported 
broadly in Congress and very broadly by the administration. What this 
amendment does is bring the appropriate level of funding for community 
health centers in this bill up to the level requested by the President. 
Less than 25 percent of the applications for new community health 
centers were funded last year. That indicates a need for continued 
significant levels of funding.
  Health centers are the first line of defense for those who are served 
by Medicaid, for those without insurance, and for those who are 
underinsured. Community health centers provide a very strong, 
competent, qualified level of service. They are absolutely instrumental 
in today's health care environment.
  This brings the funding up to the President's requested level. It is 
offset so it is not subject to a point of order. This bill is about 
setting priorities. I respect the challenges the chairman and the 
members of the subcommittee have to deal with in setting priorities. It 
is never easy. I provide a fractional across-the-board reduction to 
support this additional $200 million, but I am certainly willing to 
work with the chairman and members of the subcommittee to find another 
appropriate offset. I hope he and the Members of the Senate will 
support my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire 
for coming to the floor to offer these amendments to move the bill 
along.
  His amendment for $198.5 million for community health centers is 
certainly directed to a good program. These are very important health 
centers which are of great assistance to the American people. In the 
allocations of the funding, we have allocated for the next fiscal year 
in excess of $2 billion, $2,037,871,000. The figure I gave was the 
request, but the allocation is $1,839,311,000, which is an increase of 
$105 million over last year. Similar to the considerations on the 
amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts, the subcommittee and the 
full Appropriations Committee have given deliberation to the various 
priorities and believe this is the right figure.
  It is a customary approach to suggest an across-the-board cut. If you 
fractionalize it, it comes out to a small figure. But still, it is 
important. It comes out of the National Institutes of Health. It comes 
out of the Centers for Disease Control. It comes out of many programs 
which are, I am at a loss as to whether to say, barely adequately 
funded or underfunded or not sufficiently funded, but they can't spare 
the money. This is a matter of priorities. When the Senator from New 
Hampshire says he would be glad to consider some other offset, I would 
be pleased to work with him on another offset. But in order to have 
another offset from some other allocation, there has to be proof and a 
showing that adding $198.5 million for community health centers is more 
important to America than where we have allocated it. And we have not 
picked these figures with a dartboard, Mr. President. We haven't pulled 
them out of the air. There has been laborious effort going through the 
history of these programs--how many we have, what we can cut, what we 
can add to. It is balanced off against many factors, including the Pell 
grants we heard about. So that it is necessary to oppose the amendment, 
as much as I would like to see more money in community health centers 
and many other lines.

  With respect to the effort to add $5 million to the rehabilitation 
vision amendment, that, again, is another good amendment, but, again, 
it is a matter of allocation and where we will get the money. The 
Senator from New Hampshire would like to discuss the matter further. I 
think that is always useful, and I am prepared to undertake that to see 
if some accommodation can be made short of an outright opposition to 
the vote. So we will pursue that.
  I do thank him for coming to the floor early in this debate and 
advancing ideas to help us move the bill along, and that inspires me to 
ask 1 of his 97 colleagues, aside from the 3 of us who are in the 
Chamber now, to come to the floor with other amendments so we can keep 
this bill moving.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 2213

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following be added as cosponsors of my amendment: Senators Clinton, 
Schumer, Lieberman, Mikulski, Kerry, Reid of Nevada, Lautenberg, 
Dayton, Cantwell, Kohl, Bingaman, and Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. He has worked hard in terms of prioritizing education, 
and certainly it has been a priority of his service in the Senate and 
also on the Appropriations Committee. I appreciate that kind of 
commitment, but he tells us that we only have a given amount of 
resources to allocate.
  The Senate voted to add $5.4 billion to the Budget Act. When we voted 
on that issue earlier this year, it was $5.4 billion more for 
education--for education. That was one of the few amendments that 
passed when we had the debate on the Budget Act--$5.4 billion more for 
education. And when the

[[Page S11790]]

budget came back, it did not come back with that $5.4 billion. The 
House had no increase for this purpose. The conference committee did 
not split the difference and come back with half. They came back with 
zero. But a majority of the Members of this body voted for that 
increase. Now we have another chance, and here we are just asking for 
$200 per Pell grant for the neediest students in the country.
  The Senate, when it had its opportunity on the budget, supported a 
very enhanced funding level for higher education, but it went over to 
the Budget Committees behind closed doors and came out with zero. So he 
is right. In this particular budget that he has been allocated there is 
not the flexibility to very substantially enhance support for 
education; nonetheless, I think this amendment reflects the priorities 
of the Senate in the earlier part of the year and reflects the 
priorities of the American people.
  I am reminded that it isn't just the families who are affected. It 
isn't just the education community. The business community also 
strongly supports increased access to higher education. Business 
leaders agree that education is essential to our competitiveness. 
Listen to what the Committee for Economic Development says in a recent 
report:

       Education has been a major source of productivity growth in 
     the United States during the postwar era. Education increases 
     productive human capital, which in turn contributes to 
     overall increases in economic growth. Increases in a 
     country's average level of educational attainment by 1 year 
     can generate sizable increases in the annual economic growth, 
     as much as 6 to 16 percent.

  Look at what happens, Mr. President. Low income students enroll in 
college at less than half the rate of their high-income peers. These 
are students who are qualified for college--who worked hard, took 
rigorous courses and prepared for college. And once they enroll, only 6 
percent of those low-income students receive a BA compared to 40 
percent of those in the higher income levels. We are talking about 
children with comparable levels of academic achievement. Why is this 
happening? They are equally qualified students, but they have to leave 
college because of financial need. That is what this amendment is 
addressing. It is a question of priorities. We have the vote. If we are 
able to get the votes on the floor of the Senate, this will happen. 
This must be a priority.
  It certainly is for Natalie from Turners Falls, MA, a single mother 
enrolled in college for the first time, who always lived below the 
Federal poverty line. She writes that without Pell grants ``I would be 
stuck in this way of life with no `light' to look forward to. . . . 
Knowledge is power and education is key.''
  It certainly is for Mary Susan from Sacramento, CA, who went to 
college and became a teacher. She writes: I would not have been able to 
go to college to become a teacher if I didn't have a Pell grant. I have 
been telling students at the low-income school I work at that they can 
go to college, too, if they study hard and get good grades. But if the 
Pell grants are not available, many will not be able to go to college.

  Sara from Pensacola, FL, received Pell grants when she was a single 
mother enrolled in community college and later a 4-year college. She 
received her BA in English and is now employed making four times the 
income she made before earning her degree.
  She writes: The Pell grant saw me through college. Without it, there 
was no way I could afford to go to school. The Pell grant works.
  Yvonne from Port Richey, FL, served in the Air Force, then held a 
civilian job which she lost after September 11. She is now a single 
mother back in school. She writes: If it were not for the Pell grants I 
would not be able to return to school and be retrained for a new 
career.
  Jen from Denver, CO, writes: The only way I was able to attend 
college was with grants and loans. Sixty thousand dollars later I have 
a college degree. Obviously, with loans this high I was not fortunate 
to have parental help. The $2,000 a year I received from the Pell grant 
was substantial even though so little. To take this away from students 
is a tragedy. Cutting funding for education of any kind is wrong.
  That is a person with a very modest Pell grant. You see what a 
difference a few dollars makes.
  Scott in Georgia received Pell grants during college, which helped 
him put himself through college. He writes: Pell grants gave me the 
ability to focus more on school and work less part-time hours. I am 
extremely grateful that the Pell grant ensured that I didn't make any 
brash decisions based on lack of finances.
  I am sure the Senator from Pennsylvania has had the same experience I 
have had. You go to so many of these community colleges where these 
Pell grants offer the opportunity for students, and during the break 
time students--instead of talking about their books, instead of talking 
about lectures--are talking about their next job or where they are 
going to get the next job and what it is like to be working in that 
particular job. That is what is happening increasingly as our young 
gifted, talented people are being constantly squeezed. Our country is 
becoming more divided between the haves and have-nots. The Pell grant, 
which has been the key to opportunity, has always been something that 
has kept the door constantly open for so many young people.
  As I say, it is the key to opportunity. It is the key to 
competitiveness, the key to national security. And it is the real key 
to fairness. Education ought to have a very special place in our 
national priorities.
  I appreciate what the chairman has done in the area of education, but 
it does seem to me that the Senate as a whole should reflect that kind 
of high priority by ensuring expansive opportunities so our young 
people who have gifts and talents are able to get into school--public 
and private universities, community colleges, and others--and they are 
able to be a part of the American dream.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, just by way of a very brief comment as to 
the contentions raised by the Senator from Massachusetts, I recall his 
amendment on the budget resolution for $5 billion. I recall it very 
well because I voted for it. As I recollect it--we are checking the 
record now--it was a one-vote margin. There was considerable 
consternation about not having that amendment go to conference. I 
stayed with the Senator from Massachusetts on the $5 billion because I 
share his concern for education. And then it went to conference, as our 
procedures moved it through, and it was dropped. So Senator Kennedy's 
$5 billion with which I agreed is not there anymore. And if it were 
there, we would have a good bit more money to add to the Pell grants. 
If I could find more money for the Pell grants, I would like to. If we 
could replay the cards of what happened on the $5 billion, I would like 
to do that, too. But I am confronted with a situation where I have an 
allocation that came through the process of the Senate, and I have to 
work within that framework. The priorities are established as best we 
can.
  I think it is appropriate now for Senators who have the floor--we are 
going to vote at 2:15--to raise the point of order so it is on the 
record.
  Mr. President, in anticipation of the vote at 2:15 for purposes of 
the record, I do raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, as amended, that the amendment provides 
budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the 
budget and therefore is not in order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act 
of 1974 I move to waive the applicable section of the Budget Act in 
reference to the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have 33 minutes between now and the 
time of our policy luncheons when it is our practice to adjourn, so I 
would encourage my colleagues to come to the

[[Page S11791]]

floor to offer an amendment. In the absence of any other Senator in the 
Chamber seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


              Timeframe for U.S. Military Mission in Iraq

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to give three 
speeches on the floor so far about issues concerning the fight against 
terrorism globally and the relationship of the Iraq war to that 
struggle and that battle.
  Today, I come to the floor to talk about why I think we need a 
timeframe for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I do not mean a 
rigid timetable, nor do I mean a timetable that is not connected to 
clear and achievable benchmarks. But what we do need is a public, 
flexible, realistic timetable that will tell people when and how we 
expect to finish the military mission in Iraq.
  As my colleagues may know, I have suggested a target date of December 
31, 2006, the end of next year, for the completion of our military 
mission. Today, I want to talk a little bit about why a flexible 
timetable for withdrawal will help make the U.S. stronger and our 
enemies weaker.
  Some have argued that a timetable is designed to appeal to the 
American public, that it has no relationship to our security or to our 
achieving policy goals in Iraq. Actually, it is just the opposite. I 
proposed a timeframe because I think it has everything to do with 
improving our national security strategy.
  Our fundamental national security goal must be to combat the global 
terrorist networks that attacked and continue to threaten the United 
States. An increasing number of military experts and members of the 
public have concluded that our military presence in Iraq is not 
consistent with that goal and that it is, in fact, undermining that 
goal. I think it has become increasingly clear that we have created a 
breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and that the apparent indefinite 
presence of tens of thousands of U.S. troops is often fueling, not 
dampening, the insurgency in that country.
  Melvin Laird, a former Republican Congressman from my State of 
Wisconsin, who was the Defense Secretary under Richard Nixon, said:

       We owe it to the rest of the people back home to let them 
     know there is an exit strategy. And more important, we owe it 
     to the Iraqi people. Our presence is what feeds the 
     insurgency. And our gradual withdrawal would feed the 
     confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to 
     the insurgents.

  GEN George Casey, the commanding general of the allied forces in 
Iraq, made a similar point in testimony to Congress last month. He 
testified that:

     . . . getting Iraqis into leading the counterinsurgency 
     effort as they are capable will allow us to gradually reduce 
     the visibility of coalition forces across Iraq and, 
     ultimately, as conditions warrant, to begin to reduce our 
     presence in Iraq, taking away an element that fuels the 
     insurgency; that is, the perception of occupation.

  He went on to call reducing the visibility and presence of coalition 
forces a key element of our overall counterinsurgency strategy.
  Melvin Laird and General Casey know that our presence has fed this 
insurgence, making it easy for the insurgents to convince new recruits 
that we are there to stay.
  Mr. President, I know, you know--we all know--that is not the fault 
of our men and women in uniform who are serving courageously; it is the 
fault of the administration for sending them into battle without a 
clearly defined or well-thought-out mission.
  In February, I asked one of the top allied commanders in Iraq when I 
was there in the Green Zone what would happen if we suggested to the 
world that there is a timeframe for achieving our military 
mission. This is what I asked him. His response to me, which of course 
was off the record, was that, ``nothing would take the wind out of the 
sails of the insurgents more'' than providing a clear public plan and 
timeframe for a remaining U.S. mission.

  The President himself in June told the Nation that he did not support 
putting more troops into Iraq because, he said, ``sending more 
Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever.''
  Even the President has acknowledged the problem with feeding the 
insurgency if it appears our presence there is permanent, or ever 
expanding. I think that same logic applies to the President's refusal 
to issue a public timetable.
  To the extent that we do not explain what our military goals in Iraq 
are and when we hope to achieve them, we are playing into the hands of 
the insurgents. The insurgents are motivated by our presence and they 
feed off conspiracy theories and suspicions regarding American 
intentions. And, of course, our brave service-members and their 
families deserve some clarity about how long they are likely to remain 
in Iraq.

  The President is one of an ever-narrowing group of people who believe 
that a timetable works against our goals in Iraq. Military experts, 
people I talked to in Iraq, and the American people increasingly agree 
that the administration's refusal to even suggest a timetable for 
meeting our military goals in Iraq is feeding the insurgency.
  The lack of a timetable doesn't just feed the insurgency, it also 
discourages Iraqi ownership of their own political process. By making 
it clear that the U.S. will not be there indefinitely, we will help the 
Iraqis move toward the real political independence they need and dispel 
some of the cynicism about American intentions that empowers some of 
the more extreme elements of Iraqi society.
  Finally, a timetable is important because it enables us to devote 
more resources to the other national security issues that demand our 
attention. To fight the global terrorist networks that threaten the 
U.S., we need to focus energy and resources on countering emerging 
terrorist tactics, dealing with the threat of ``loose nukes,'' and 
repairing the damage to our Army, to name just a few urgent priorities. 
Drawing down U.S. troops in Iraq will allow us to focus on these 
priorities. It is time to make sure that our Iraq policy is advancing, 
not undermining, our national security goals.
  The administration and its allies have offered various arguments as 
to why they can't or won't come up with a clear plan and timeline for 
military success in Iraq.
  One argument has been that the U.S. pullouts from Somalia in the 
1990s and Lebanon in the 1980s emboldened terrorists and others who 
oppose American interests. To pull out of Iraq without having put down 
the Iraqi insurgency once and for all would supposedly be another sign 
of American weakness.
  But our decisions about national security shouldn't be made based on 
conjecture about the ``message'' that some might perceive. No one, 
including the Bush administration, can know how the insurgents in Iraq 
might feel about the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. We do know, 
however, that right now we are making the insurgency stronger with our 
indefinite presence in Iraq, and our failure to articulate a timetable 
for military withdrawal. We also know that our commitment of 
resources--money, troops, time--to Iraq is detracting from our ability 
to focus on our most pressing national security goals and stretching 
our military to the breaking point. Terrorists will not feel 
particularly emboldened about us putting our Iraq policy on track so 
that we can focus our attention on eliminating them. The President 
suggests that if he issues a timetable for how long he expects U.S. 
troops to remain in Iraq, our enemies will think that we are weak. But 
without a plan to finish our military mission, our enemies will know 
that we have fallen into a trap and we can't figure out how to get out. 
That is what they will know if we do not apply some common sense to 
this situation.
  When I pressed Secretary Rice on the need for a timetable last week, 
she responded that ``we'd like our discussions of withdrawal and of 
bringing down the numbers of forces to be results-based rather than 
time-based.'' But of course a timetable should be results-based. As I 
have said over and over, any timetable needs to be flexible and needs 
to be tied to achievable benchmarks. The point is to have some idea of 
when

[[Page S11792]]

those benchmarks, those results, can be achieved. Without such a 
timetable, and without clear, realistic benchmarks. we cannot hold 
ourselves accountable for meeting our goals. Nor can we give our troops 
and the American people the clarity they deserve about their mission.
  The Bush administration, with all these arguments, has succeeded in 
one thing: in intimidating people into not uttering the words 
``timetable,'' or ``timeframe,'' or ``target date'' for finishing the 
military mission. But with the words of Republicans like Melvin Laird 
and military leaders like General Casey, more and more people 
understand that having a flexible timetable will strengthen our 
national security. This is not a timetable where the objective is troop 
withdrawal, the objective is to focus on our national security needs 
and the timetable is one step towards that goal. A timetable is not 
about domestic politics--it's about undercutting insurgency recruiting 
and unity, encouraging more Iraqi ownership and responsibility, and 
creating space for other important U.S. national security efforts.
  I again emphasize that the timeframe I have proposed is a flexible 
one--not a drop-dead date, not a deadline, not a formula for ``cut and 
run.'' It is linked with a call for more clarity about what we want the 
U.S. military to achieve in Iraq.
  Please note that I am only referring to a timeframe for the military 
mission in Iraq, not for our broader political and other missions in 
Iraq. We all understand that our engagement in Iraq will not end with 
the U.S. military mission. We will still have a great deal of tough 
diplomatic work to do in Iraq well after the bulk of U.S. troops leave, 
and probably some serious security cooperation as well.
  We will continue to devote resources to Iraq, without a doubt. But as 
it stands today, we have focused on Iraq to the exclusion of critically 
important national security priorities. And we have done so at great 
cost to the outstanding men and women of the U.S. military, and to 
their families. When I speak to service men and women in Wisconsin and 
in Iraq, and when I speak to their families, their pride in their 
service is evident and it is well earned. But their frustration with 
this open-ended commitment, with the stop-loss orders and the multiple 
deployments, with the extensions and the uncertainties, is equally 
evident, and it is very painful. We can do better by them, by insisting 
on clarity, by insisting on accountability, and by assuring them that 
we have a plan with clear and achievable goals.
  We must stop feeding the insurgency in Iraq, and focus on the fight 
against the terrorist networks that threaten the security of the 
American people. A timetable can make us stronger, and our enemies 
weaker. That is the strategy we must pursue, and I look forward to 
working with colleagues here in the Senate to move such a proposal 
forward. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent, the previous order 
notwithstanding, that I might speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning 
business to eulogize my former colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________