[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.
____________________