Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, at 10 a.m. to consider the nomination of the Honorable James A. Nussle to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, a couple of months ago a distraught mother from Cincinnati wrote me about the private loan her daughter had taken to go to college. Her daughter had borrowed $21,000, was facing a bill for over $100,000 as a result. She sent me the disclosure sheet on the loan represented in this chart because she could not believe what she saw. She took out a loan for $21,000 for 2 years of school. That loan grew, at an 18 percent interest rate, to almost $35,000 because there was a deferral on payback of the loan during her 2 years in school. So she ended up owing $67,000 for the life of the loan. That is why she ended up paying $102,000 because of this incredibly high interest rate for student loan, 18\1/4\ percent. I have shown this statement to a loan officer at a bank and also to my attorney. They both expressed to me they had never seen anything such as this and there must be a mistake. Unfortunately, the only mistake is Congress has failed to act to restrain the costs of these loans, which as we have seen, can carry interest rates sometimes in excess of 18 percent. It is not an isolated problem. Private loans have been growing at an annual pace of some 27 percent, meaning that because tuition continues to grow at a rapid rate, and the Federal Government has not met, through the Direct Student Loan Program or the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, has not met that increase, the amount that students need has grown at such a rapid rate that private lenders have come in charging interest rates similar to this, 18 percent, 16 percent, 17 percent, whatever. The cost of college has climbed so much that we have seen this kind of growth. In Ohio, the median house income increased 3 percent between 2000 and 2006. Tuition went up 53 percent at 4-year public schools, 28 percent at 4-year private schools. Tuition went up 28 percent for some, 53 percent for others. Yet the average wage in our State went up only 3 percent. The Federal loan limits have barely budged over the past several decades. In 1972, a freshman could borrow $2,500 in Federal loans. Last year, that number barely moved to $2,600, even though, in real terms, the limit on borrowing would amount to $12,000, if it kept pace with inflation. To be fair, the law changed this month. A freshman can borrow $3,500 for school. But even though the limits in the first 2 years have been increased somewhat, the overall cap on borrowing remains the same, $23,000 for a dependent undergraduate. This bill does nothing to change the cap because the HELP Committee decided, correctly in my view, the bulk of savings we could achieve should be plowed back into Pell grants. I applaud Chairman Kennedy for doing that. With the price tag for 4 years of college at $120,000 for private schools, $50,000 for public schools, there is obviously a big gap for many students. That gap gets filled in many ways: savings, work, grants, PLUS Loans, credit cards, you name it. But for more students, private loans are playing a bigger role. According to testimony before the Banking Committee last month, Sallie Mae made $7 billion in private loans and $15 billion in Federal loans. In other words, one out of three college student loan dollars originated by the biggest student lender in the country is a private loan subject to much higher rates. As this chart indicates, the private loan program may well outstrip the Federal program over the next decade. What we have done on this chart is use the growth rates of the two programs over the past several years to predict how large they will grow if current trends continue. The darker reddish-purple there is the unregulated private bank loans that students are getting, growing more than 20 percent a year. You can see how within 7 or 8 years, they will overtake student loans. More and more students are forced to go through private banks for private loans at higher and higher interest rates every year. Think about these numbers: A 28-percent increase in tuition over the last 6 years for private 4-year institutions, 53 percent for public 4-year institutions. Yet the average wage has only gone up 3 percent. Congress very often legislates through the rear-view mirror. We wait until a problem becomes close to unmanageable before we feel compelled to act. Today we can take a different approach. We can act to address a problem before it becomes widespread. This amendment I am offering will create an alternative for the fastest growing segment of the student loan industry, private loans. My amendment creates a supplemental loan program that would be run by the Federal Government. It would provide one more option for students to finance their education. Over the years, my Republican colleagues have defended the private guaranteed student loan program by arguing there should be competition between the guaranteed and the Direct Loan Program and that the competition made both better. Right now there is no competition for these private loans with the results that students have been charged in excess of 18 percent.

Mr. BROWN. I will yield.

Mr. BROWN. I think that is exactly right, what Senator Kennedy said. Because of the efforts of Senator Enzi and Senator Kennedy, in a bipartisan effort in this body last week, to move money that has been subsidizing those private companies into Pell grants and into better rates and better payback periods and all of that for students, we have gone a big part of the way. But on this chart, as Senator Kennedy suggests, the dollars students will need continue to skyrocket, and the only place they can go is these private banks.

Mr. BROWN. This is actually 2005.

Mr. BROWN. Well, we also had a chart earlier that showed that increase of 20-plus percent, up until now, in real dollars. If the percentage increase continues, and there is no reason it would not, it will grow similar to this. But we have had several years of this already.

Mr. BROWN. Correct.

Mr. BROWN. That is correct. We are not regulating the banks. We are simply setting up a program so that the Government will break even. It will not cost taxpayer dollars. We are setting up a program to compete directly with private lenders, which we are certain, as my Republican friends have said, with the direct student loan program, that competition will make both operate better. I will briefly summarize the amendment and then reserve our time. The amendment requires the Secretary of Education to offer two types of loans, a fixed rate and a variable. Each type of loan would be offered for borrowers with or without cosigners. The Secretary would then have the discretion of designing the program to mirror other features offered by private loans such as delayed payment until after graduation or deferment for certain hardships. This amendment will clearly stop situations like this one from happening to a student, where a student goes in with a $21,000 loan and has to pay $500 monthly for 179 times and ends up paying $102,000 for a $21,000 student loan. We will see a competitive situation which will save those students dramatic amounts of money, working with what Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi did last week on debt forgiveness, on the Pell grants--all that will absolutely matter for students.

Mr. BROWN. This creates a competitive situation similar to what we have had since 1939 but for students who have to borrow money beyond the $23,000 limit. It doesn't regulate the banks. It doesn't tell the banks what to do. It simply sets up a competitive situation from which all of us will gain. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BROWN. How much time remains?

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would prefer to close, if the Senator from Wyoming has any more time he would like to use.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, how much time do the opponents of the amendment have?

Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair. I will close. We know several things. We, first of all, know that my amendment sets up a competition. It does not set up, it does not run the system. It simply sets up a competition. It does not tilt the playing field. It makes the playing field even so interest rates will not continue to be at a usurious rate of 16 and 17 and 18 percent. We know the Direct Loan Program works. We have seen the Government involved in the Direct Loan Program, as in Pell, as in Stafford. The Government, in fact, has negative subsidy rates of 7 percent and 4 percent. In other words, the Government has done these so efficiently that the Government either breaks even or actually makes money. We know my amendment does not take effect until students have exhausted up to $23,000. There are other opportunities to get financing for college. It only goes there. It is not a new program that simply will take people in because it is tilted, as my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, says. We also know if we do nothing, as USA Today said: There is just one problem. The efforts short of this amendment would do little to rein in the fastest growing area of the market-- loans that are not federally backed whose rates can generally rise without limit. Bills in Congress would not affect rates on these loans, also often called private loans, until this amendment. The ranking member said he hopes the banks charge lower interest rates. The fact is--as the Senator from New Hampshire talked about gaming the system--the banks are gaming the system. That is why this woman from Cincinnati had to--on a loan of $21,000--pay $102,000 back, at 18 percent interest. We just want some competition. I do not want to see the easy money-- the Senator from New Hampshire talks about the easy money. It is easy money for the banks. It is huge profits for the banks. This is really a decision that comes down to, are you going to support students in giving them the opportunity to go to school? This is not buying a car. This is not making car loans. This is providing an opportunity for a lot of students. It is their first chance to go to college. My wife went to college, enrolled at Kent State University 30 years ago. She was the first one in her family to go to college. She probably could not do that today because the loans and the grants are not available the way they were 30 years ago. She probably would have either not been able to go to school because she could not have put the financial package together or she would have seen a situation where she would have been burdened with such huge loans, huge debt when she graduated. There is the choice, are you voting for students in this country-- giving opportunity to middle-class students, opportunity to working families--or are you going to vote to support the banks so they can continue to charge these kinds of 15, 16, 17, 18 percent interest rates? Mr. President, I ask for support of the Brown amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask for support for the Brown amendment. We know in the last 5 years the cost of public education has gone up for a 4-year degree 53 percent. We know the cost of private education for a 4-year degree has gone up 28 percent. We also know that wages have gone up only 3 to 4 percent for the average person during this 5- year period. The Federal Government is not keeping up with helping students get the opportunity to go to college. We have seen students have no alternative. They have exhausted what they can do with Pell grants. They have exhausted what they can do either through the direct loan program or other federally backed programs. The fastest growing part of their student loan availability is going to private institutions with a 16- to 18-percent interest rate. This amendment is no cost to the Government. It competes with banks. We reauthorize every 5 to 7 years the Higher Education Act. This is an opportunity we should not pass up. The problem is only getting worse. I ask for support of the Brown amendment.

Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes from the bill.

Mr. BROWN. I rise today in support of the Higher Education Access Act. This legislation will give millions of students an opportunity to attend college. As Senator Reed said, it is helping those students with talent get the opportunity to go to college that, in another generation, prior to the last three decades or so, they simply may not have had. In too many cases, if you look at what has happened to students of working class families, they are not getting those opportunities now that they got a generation ago. We all know what has happened to the cost of college in the last few years. It has doubled since 1980, rising faster than inflation for 20 consecutive years. College tuition has risen faster than the price of any other consumer item, including health care. In my home State of Ohio, between 1981 and 2007, in a quarter of a century, tuition and fees have increased 231 percent at public universities and 94 percent in 2-year institutions. We know that is because government on the State level is simply not funding, in very many States, public higher education the way they had in the past. Family incomes cannot keep up. The median household income in Ohio increased just 3 percent between 2000 and 2006, whereas tuition during that same period went up 53 percent in 4-year public institutions and 28 percent at 4-year private institutions. Think about that. Income went up 3 percent for those families, all families--including, obviously, families with students of college age-- yet while income went up 3 percent the cost of education went up either by a quarter or a half, depending on what kind of school to which those parents sent their children. Even after financial aid is taken into account, 42 percent of median family income in my State of Ohio is needed to pay for a year of college in a 4-year public college. A 2006 report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education gave Ohio an F in college affordability. Our students, our families, our economy are feeling the impact. Think again about what that means to a middle-class family. To so many working families, college tuition has gone up 25, 50 percent over a several-year period, while income has gone up only 2 or 3 or 4 percent for most of the students. My wife was the first in her family to go to college. She grew up in Ashtabula, OH. She went to Kent State University. It was difficult for her family, but in those days her dad held a union job. Her mother went to work about the time she went to school. Her mother was a home care worker. She didn't make very much money, but she had a decent union job. She had a lower paying job, but with grants and aid and all of that, she was able to go to a State university, as were her three younger siblings, two daughters and a son. So all four of them, the first four in their family to go to college, were able to do that. That was in the 1970s and 1980s. This is a different era where, unfortunately, because of decisions made in the State government and, frankly, because of a stinginess from the Federal Government, it has made it that much harder for students to go to school. More and more students are going out of State to attend college. Ohio students are. The ones who stay find they can't afford it. This is unacceptable. If we are asking our students to be competitive, we must make the investment in them. For students lucky enough to make it to college, they are rewarded not only with a degree, we hope, but also saddled with crippling debt. Sixty-six percent of students in Toledo and Dayton and Steubenville and Youngstown, Galion and Gallipolis, 66 percent of students graduating from 4-year institutions in the 2004-2005 school year graduated with debt. Two-thirds of all students graduated with debt. Those students owed an average of $19,259. That affects their future. It affects the job they choose. It affects their ability to marry and have children and what they are able to face with the financial challenges and the debt that they bear from the moment they graduate. Even worse, the purchasing power of the Pell grant--Senator Reid talked about that--the main source of grant income assisting lower income students--has dropped dramatically. Students and parents are finding it harder and harder to figure out a way to finance their education. Look back at this whole picture. Tuition has gone up 25 percent to 50 percent, depending on whether you go to a private or public college, over the last few years. Wages have gone up 3 or 4 percent. Students who are able to go to college at all and face that get the grants and loans that can get them through their 2- or 4-year institution and end up with a debt--two-thirds of these students end up with a debt on the average of $20,000. Think of what that does. All this at a time when privately subsidized student lenders such as Sallie Mae are reporting record profits and raking in millions of dollars off the backs of the students. The Presiding Officer and I and several Members of the freshman class today had a news conference decrying what has happened with the privatization of parts of the military, what has happened with private contractors, the kind of fraud they have committed, how it doesn't save taxpayer dollars, how it doesn't make for a stronger military, how it doesn't mean a more efficient government. What we are seeing, with the leadership of Senator Webb and Senator McCaskill, is the graft and fraud and inefficiency they are exposing in the Pentagon budget and in the private contracting in the Pentagon. We also see that same kind of privatization and the impact it has on Medicare, with the drug companies and the insurance companies rewarded at taxpayer expense. We see it, obviously, in Social Security, where some in this institution want to privatize Social Security. We see it in public education. We are having a big battle this week on No Child Left Behind, in the same committee Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi jointly run, the Health, Education, Labor, Pension Committee. We will see that there, with some of the private education efforts on for-profit schools. We have seen it especially in the student loan program where this kind of privatization means fewer dollars are available to go directly to students. Taxpayer dollars are wasted. It is less efficient. It leads in many cases to fraud and graft. It also leads, frankly, to political contributions for those politicians who support these privatization efforts. You can look at Halliburton, you can look at many of these companies--the drug industry which was rewarded on the Medicare bill with literally $200 billion more because of that bill over a 10-year period than they would have had otherwise. Look at the Medicare bill and private insurance companies, how they were ``enticed'' is the word we use around here; another more direct word might be ``bribed''--but they were enticed to enter the Prescription Drug Program by Government subsidies. Again, the money makes for less efficiency, more waste, more money lining the pockets of individual contributors, whether it is Medicare in a prescription drug benefit or students in a student loan benefit and ultimately more costs for already overburdened taxpayers. That is why this legislation is so important. It will finally start to trim back as well as stop this privatization of our Government, stop these companies from basically taking money that is public dollars and putting it into their pockets without providing the service they should provide directly to the beneficiaries we have designated. This legislation will finally start to trim back those bloated subsidies to private lenders and focus those scarce dollars where they are needed most, to our students. It will begin to hold colleges accountable for rising costs and assure that students and parents have the information they need to make informed decisions about what college to attend. It will raise the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year, increasing to $5,400 by 2011. The average grant in Ohio will increase $430 next year to $2,850.16. This Pell grant was stuck, in spite of the President's promises in 2000 in his first Presidential campaign--the Pell grant had been stuck at that level for 5 years. Senator Kennedy's leadership, Senator Reid's leadership early in this session, increased the Pell grant in the continuing resolution back in January. We are increasing it again over the next 3 years. This bill will help nontraditional and community college students by making them eligible for Pell grants. It will help protect students by reforming a broken student loan system, a far too privatized student loan system that now provides too much in the way of subsidies to private lenders. It will make sure student interests are the motivating factors behind college decisions to recommend lenders. This bill promotes innovative teacher preparation programs so our students are better prepared for college. This bill doesn't do everything we need. We need to work to keep interest rates down in the totally privatized student loan system, the most rapidly growing part of the student loan system, because prices have gone up so dramatically the Federal programs have not been able to keep up. More students have to turn to totally private loans, and those totally private loans have seen interest rates go as high as 18 percent. Senator Kennedy is interested in that legislation. We have introduced separate legislation to do that. That is something we hope to pursue down the line. But this legislation begins to stop the privatization of student loans. This legislation we are voting on, the legislation Senator Kennedy brought to the floor, will begin to arrest the privatization of this system, where too many people outside of the student and the Government have benefited from the privatization of this system. It is time that taxpayer dollars go directly to students to create the opportunities so they can go to college so they can be productive citizens. That is what we did 30 years ago, in this institution, before many of us were here. Senator Kennedy was there. The leadership he showed 30 years ago in making this system work to give opportunity to middle- class kids, to working-class kids, to poor kids--this bill moves in that direction. All students, regardless of their family, regardless of their privilege, regardless of who their parents are, should be able to afford college. We still have so much to do. This legislation is a good step in the right direction. I yield.

Mr. BROWN. I thank Chairman Kennedy for his leadership. It is clear to me, as it obviously is to him, that we made tremendous progress in this legislation, with putting dollars that have gone into the excess profits of a relatively small number of companies--putting those dollars either back in taxpayers' pockets or giving it directly to students through this loan program. There is more work to do, and I appreciate his interest in doing that. I yield my time.

Mr. BROWN. I would love to yield.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the American people's opposition to this war is not the political passion of a moment, as some have suggested. It is a majority, a growing majority, a thoughtful growing majority reflecting the will of the people of this country. We need 60 votes because of recalcitrance, because of political game playing, because too many of our colleagues are more interested in protecting the President than they are in protecting our troops. We know to get 60 votes we need 11 Republicans. Many Republicans, a growing number of Republicans in this body, have spoken out against this war. They have decided that we need to change course in Iraq. The problem is simply this. It seems like almost every Tuesday Vice President Cheney comes and speaks to the Republican lunch. The Republicans meeting in conference, having lunch, Vice President Cheney pulls up, his limousine drops him off at the door of the Senate, he comes in and speaks to them or other administration officials. The arm twisting, the lobbying by the administration, is making it that much harder to change direction in this war. That is why it is so difficult to get to 60. That is why we want a vote, we want an up-or- down vote, we want a majority vote, because a majority vote reflects public sentiment, reflects what the voters said last fall, reflects the policy that the Iraq Study Group has suggested, that the military has advised the President, but the President simply dug in and did not listen. Last November voters in my State of Ohio, from Galion to Gallipolis, and across this Nation shouted from the ballot boxes that we needed a new direction, that the Iraq war must end. They demanded that we refocus our efforts on securing our homeland so that the darkest day in our Nation's history, 9/11, is never repeated. With Democrats in control of Congress this session we immediately, in January, began working to end the war. We immediately began to work implementing the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in order to make us safer, recommendations that will go a long way toward making this country safer. By working to end the war in Iraq and by passing the Commission's recommendation, we are executing a strategy to combat terrorism and to make our country safer. Make no mistake, ending the war in Iraq itself is a counterterrorism strategy. Global terrorist attacks have increased sevenfold since we invaded Iraq--seven times, more than 700 percent. Our continued engagement in Iraq, frankly, is the best thing that ever happened to jihadist recruitment. We know America is a less safe country because of the war in Iraq. We know global terrorist attacks have increased sevenfold, seven times worldwide since the war in Iraq began. Democrats brought to this Chamber not one piece of legislation to redeploy our troops out of Iraq in the safest, most orderly way possible, but many resolutions, many pieces of legislation. Each and every time either Republicans defeated the measure in Congress by threatening a filibuster or the President vetoed it in the White House--each and every time. This week we find ourselves at the same impasse, the same struggle in this Chamber between a new direction and more of the same failed policies. Again, too many of my colleagues would rather protect the President of the United States than protect our soldiers and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan. More of the same means supporting the President, but it means something very different to Ohio families. It means more loved ones wounded, more loved ones killed. Mr. President, 156 people in my State have been killed in Iraq, 156 people. More than 1,100 Ohioans have been wounded. Ohio cannot afford more of the same. Again, too many of my colleagues care more about protecting the President than they do about protecting our troops. Ohio families have had it with hollow promises by the President. From first declaring ``mission accomplished'' in 2003 to his visit last week in my home State of Ohio, in Cleveland, the President used grand pronouncements of success in an effort to buy more time, stay the course and buy more time; continue our involvement in this civil war and buy more time. Time and again those pronouncements were followed by increased violence and expanding chaos in Iraq. Time and again those pronouncements mean more names being added to the list of dead and wounded Americans. Mr. President, 3,617 Americans have died in the war in Iraq. At least 35,000 Americans have suffered serious injuries that will be with them and with us for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Every year I see Iraq slip further and further into a civil war with our Nation's military caught in the middle. The President sent our Nation's military into a war of choice on failed intelligence and, as we know, without proper body armor. Adding insult to injury, literally just today, a USA Today article revealed that nearly 4 years later our troops are still without the lifesaving equipment they need. I remember before the attack, before we invaded Iraq, I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I voted against this war in October of 2002. We began questioning Paul Bremer during the beginning of 2003, before the attack. Mr. Bremer was the administrator in Iraq for the U.S. Government, the Provisional Government. We continued to focus on providing the kind of body armor for our troops and Mr. Bremer said we are doing the best we can, but we have not done very well. We have a lot to do. We still attacked that country, we still sent our troops into harm's way without that body armor. As we discuss this issue, tonight in Baghdad it is early morning. The forecast calls for a high of 104 degrees. While our solders have some protection from the extreme heat, like water, shade, and the mini air- conditioning units, they are not protected from a far deadlier force in Iraq, the improvised explosive devices or IED bombs. The USA Today article highlighted the lack of planning to protect our soldiers riding in Humvees from the impact of IED bombs. Humvees have a very low ground clearance, a little less than a foot and a half. The bottom of a humvee is flat so when it is hit by an IED blast from the bottom, troops suffer the brunt of the explosion. The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, or MRAP--the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, on the other hand, has a 3-foot clearance, and its body is V-shaped so when the explosion happens, the explosion, if you will, is dissipated and more often than not the troops are not nearly as badly injured. The soldiers are much better protected. The few MRAPS in theater have proven their effectiveness and clearly saved lives and clearly saved many of our soldiers and marines from injury. What infuriates me and should infuriate everyone across this Nation is that the Pentagon and the administration, similarly to back in 2002 and 2003 when they failed to work hard to provide the body armor to prepare for this war, the Pentagon and the administration again did not immediately work to fix the problem of the humvee's susceptibility to IEDs; the needless loss of life from this willful ignorance to correct the glaring problem of the unprotected humvees could have been prevented, but arrogance and stubbornness from the administration kept the administration from doing the right thing. The President, in some sense, is proud of his stubbornness. Instead he should be ashamed of it. His stubbornness has led to a failed policy in Iraq and to a failed policy on the war on terror. The President has yet to define victory. He has yet to tell us how many years it will take to achieve whatever his definition of victory is. Will we be in Iraq for 5 more years, 10 more years, 15 years? Will hundreds more Americans die? Will thousands more of our service men and women die? Will tens of thousands die? The President has yet to hold himself and his administration accountable for fomenting a civil war, in breeding more global terrorism. Remember, we have seen an increase in attacks of sevenfold since the time of the attack and the beginning of this war. The path he is wed to has simultaneously increased the threat of terrorism, reduced our nation's capability to protect against it, and made us less safe. That stubbornness is not leadership. That defensiveness is not leadership. That finger-pointing from the White House, from some of my colleagues, is not leadership. And supporting the President's strategy in Iraq, rather than supporting the troops because you support the President, is not leadership. Blocking another vote to bring our troops home, and that is exactly what they are doing tonight by their partisan antics, by their petty political games, blocking an up-or-down vote so the American people's will can be expressed, by blocking another vote to bring our troops home, is not leadership. Lives are at stake. Our homeland security is at stake. Global security is at stake. Last week, we learned that al-Qaida is at pre-9/ 11 strength. That is frightening news. Of course, it is a cause for outrage because it did not have to be that way. We also learned last week that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is fostering the next generation of al-Qaida at an alarming rate. What kind of signal exactly do the President and his supporters think we send by failing to secure the region where we know al-Qaida lives and trains and plans with--according to military analysts--relative freedom, the same region that served as the breeding ground for global terrorism through al-Qaida before 9/11, the same region we now know that al-Qaida trained in before the deadliest attack on our Nation's soil, the same region where Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/ 11, not Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the same region where he is believed to be hiding, free to plot the next attack on our beloved homeland? Over the objection of military advisers, the 9/11 Commission, and the voice of a nation, the President, again that word ``stubbornly,'' insists on staying the course with the failed policy in Iraq. Staying the course with the President's failed policy has not just forced our Government to take our eye off the ball of terrorism, it has caused us to drop it. Again, global terrorist attacks have increased seven times since we invaded Iraq, sevenfold since we invaded Iraq. Prior to World War II, the French built the Maginot Line. Same thought the line would prevent Germany from attacking France. History proved the French wrong. The President's strategy in Iraq is the Maginot Line of the 21st century. It imperils our Nation by mistakenly focusing our attention in the wrong direction. We have dropped the ball on capturing Osama bin Laden. We have dropped the ball on securing Afghanistan. We have dropped the ball on implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and anyone who thinks those are not signals that al-Qaida is paying attention to is surely mistaken. Supporting the President's policy does not just fail to effectively target terrorism, it puts the bull's-eye squarely on our Nation. Ending the war in Iraq is not just about bringing our troops home. Ending the war in Iraq is not just about ensuring veterans get the health care and the benefits they have been denied, and the Presiding Officer tonight has done perhaps more than anybody in this institution about that. Ending the war is not just about a new direction in our foreign policy. Ending the war is not about returning our focus to where it might be if our Nation and our community, our families are to remain safe. Ending the war is about reengaging full force on the war on terror to make us safer. I applaud my Republican friends who chose to stand up to the President. More and more of them have taken steps of bravery with every vote we bring to the floor. But it is not enough. With every lost vote, we add more lines to the list of men and women lost in Iraq. Every lost vote we add more names to the list of wounded. With every lost vote, we empower al-Qaida. We keep hearing the same rhetoric: If we do not fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them here. Good line but bad logic. The real truth is: If we do not fight the terrorists where they are in cells around the world, in Afghanistan, and where they really are, then we will fight them here. In the Senate, those of us committed to ending the war of choice and securing our Nation will keep fighting. I appreciate the leadership of so many of my colleagues who have shown courageous leadership on this crisis of our generation. Our fight to end the war and refocus our efforts has just begun. We want to vote, we want a majority vote to reflect the growing, thoughtful opposition to this war. A huge majority of the American people are trying to overcome the furious lobbying effort of the President and the Vice President. Our fight to end this war has just begun. We are going to change this policy. The safety of every American depends upon it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN. I object. The informal order established was Senator Alexander, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, myself, then a Republican, and then Senator Menendez. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.