Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the House amendment and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Thursday, July 19; that on Thursday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2669.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if there is no further business today, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the amendment be suspended.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this legislation now before the Senate was passed out of our committee 17 to 3. It has strong bipartisan support. At the outset of this extremely important education measure, I wish to say I am enormously appreciative and grateful to my colleague and friend, the Senator from Wyoming, for his leadership and enormously grateful to all the members of our committee for their participation and involvement, and the staff of our committee has done an extraordinary job. The work started on this legislation many, many, many months ago. We understood the need for this legislation, as we understood the need to work on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The reauthorization legislation is not in this particular package, although I am strongly in support of it, as my colleague, Senator Enzi, is. We understand that, under the procedural rules, if we were to add that legislation onto this particular provision, there would be serious issues and questions whether the reconciliation provisions would continue to lie, and that might put the totality of our education legislation effort in some jeopardy. But I wish to, at the outset of this debate, give assurances to all our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, that Senator Enzi and I are one in terms of the desire for the Senate to pass the reauthorization legislation. Somewhat later in this discussion, I will go through in some detail the provisions of that reauthorization legislation. We wish to focus on what I think is the heart and soul of the higher education debate and that is, for the first time since the GI bill, we are providing very significant assistance to needy students in this country; and, secondly, we are providing assistance to the middle class in relieving them of a good deal of the pressure they have in paying off student loans in the future. So this is where we are, as far as the higher education bill. We are going to continue to work with Senator Enzi and the other members of the committee to try to find a satisfactory follow-on procedure for the reauthorization of the higher education bill. It has a number, as I mentioned, of very important provisions, and we will try to make a recommendation to the full Senate either later today or tomorrow but certainly before we conclude this legislation. Education, I think as all of us understand, is the key to the hopes and dreams of American families and to the young people of this country. It has been that way since the founding of the Republic. I come from the State--which I am proud to represent, Massachusetts--that had in its constitution in 1780--John Adams was the author of the Massachusetts Constitution, the first constitution of all of the original States--it spelled out in very careful detail the responsibility of the public to support education. At this time, they were talking about the general education of the citizenry. Each and every other State that wrote its constitution took literally from those particular provisions of the Massachusetts references to education. Every single State constitution has different provisions, but all of them include important provisions for education. Americans understand this is the key to our future. It is the key to, first of all, our ability to have our democratic institutions function and work well, to guarantee the rights and the liberties of the Constitution of the United States. Secondly, it is key to our economy so that we are going to be strong economically in the United States, with an economy that is going to provide the opportunity for progress for all the people of this country. Thirdly, it is essential, in terms of our national security, to make sure we have an informed citizenry who is able to move ahead and take advantage of the extraordinary technology that is available in terms of our military, so we make sure that we have the best trained, the best equipped, and the latest in technology guaranteed to those men and women who are going to fight for the United States. So education is the key. It is the key to all the important progress this Nation is going to make in the future. We take a good deal of pride in the fact that we are going to provide help and relief to millions and millions of Americans who have been increasingly pressured by the extraordinary explosion of the cost of tuition for the young people of this country. As we look back again at history, to the development of the public school system, we note that Horace Mann, the great educator, believed in the public school system. We look at the efforts that were made during the American Civil War, the Morrill Act. Even in the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, establishing the land grant colleges, which made such a difference to States all across this Nation. We remember the extraordinary steps that President Roosevelt took in the GI bill after World War II. We had some 15, 16 million Americans who were under arms at the end of World War II in 1940, with an average age of 26 years old--26 years old in 1940--with 1 year of high school education. So many of these individuals went off to war and served for 3, 4, 5 years in the military and then came back. President Roosevelt saw the importance of developing the GI bill, and that made such a difference. Many believe it was the piece--the piece--of legislation that made possible the development of the middle class in this country. If you take what the United States spent in the 6 years after the GI bill was enacted, it would come to approximately a third of the Federal budget in 1951. That is the kind of priority Americans put on education at that time, and that has been a priority that has been certainly missing for a long period of time. It does seem to me we are restating and reaffirming a strong commitment to higher education in this legislation. Another important event in terms of increasing the support for higher education came in the late 1950s--1957, to be specific. At the time of the launch of the Sputnik, there were concerns the Soviet Union was getting ahead, and so we had the National Defense Education Act, which provided assistance in the areas of math and science. For many of those leading our research agencies and independent agencies in the Federal Government, it made such a difference for those graduates in that National Defense Education Act. Then in 1960, we had a national debate in this country, at that time between my brother, then-Senator Kennedy and Vice President Nixon, about higher education. Where were we going? This was the issue that was put forward to the American people. What are we going to say to the young people of this country if they wish to gain admission to any school or college in this country--any school or college--on the basis of their ability, their willingness to work hard? We in the Federal Government were going to provide enough assistance to those individuals so they would be able to gain entrance to that school or college. It could be grants, it could be loans, it could be work-study programs, it could be the requirement that they are going to have to work in the summer, gain some contribution from their family, but nonetheless it was going to be a range of different opportunities that were going to be put together to permit those individuals who came from needy families, who had ability and dedication and commitment, to gain entrance to schools and colleges anyplace in this country. We were going to make that a commitment. In 1960, that was a principal issue during the course of the campaign, and we saw the passage of the Higher Education Act in the early 1960s. A great debate at that time was whether we were going to provide assistance to the student or assistance to the university, and the decision was made it would be to the student. That is basically the origin of the Pell grant. Since that time, we have seen a number of different opportunities for individuals to move ahead and gain assistance. What we have seen is the challenge that is out there today. I am going to take a few minutes to point out the challenges that exist today for so many of those who are going on to college. If we look back at 1986-87, you see the average tuition fees, room and board, for a 4- year private college, which was $9,800. Now, it is $30,000. If we are talking about the average tuition for four-year public colleges, it increased $4,000 to $12,000 in that same period, virtually a 300- percent increase in the last 20 years. This has put an enormous stress on students. Each year, nearly half of all college-ready students, from families with incomes under $50,000, can't go to a 4-year college because of cost. Let me repeat that again: Nearly half of all college-ready students in families with incomes under $50,000 can't go to a 4-year college because of the cost. Each year, we have some 400,000 talented, college-qualified students, who cannot go on to higher education because they can't afford to do so. We know what happens in colleges and universities now, with students taking longer and longer to complete their degrees. They have to work harder and longer, both in the summertime or taking semesters off, so they can gain greater resources to be able to complete their school and earn their degree. Look at this. Going back to 1985-86 and what the costs were at that time, and now look what the assistance, the maximum Pell grant, is as a share of tuition fees and room and board from 1985-86 to 2005-06, and you see it has gone from 55 percent for a public 4-year institution down to 33 percent; 24 percent in 1985-86 to 14 percent for a private 4-year institution. What this is basically saying is the neediest students, those with ability, those with skills, are finding out the assistance they need has been gradually withdrawn; that the kind of assistance for them has been significantly reduced, which has put more and more pressure on the middle class and working families. Because of these increasing costs and stagnant grant aid, more students now have to take out loans to finance their education. If you look at 1993, less than half of all graduates had to take out loans. But in 2004, nearly two-thirds had to take out loans to finance their education. This is extraordinary. In 1993, not all that long ago--not all that long ago, over half of students did not have to take out loans in order to go to school. Now, two-thirds have to do so. What has been the result? This is the result. The young people who are graduating from the universities in our country are now increasingly heavier and heavier in debt. In 1993, $9,250; in 2004, 10 years later, $19,000. This is the average debt. This doesn't even begin to include what it costs to go to graduate school or medical school. Then you are going into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Young people who would like to go into general practice, into higher degrees of specialties, they are going to have to pay off a large debt. So it has all kinds of implications for a graduate's career choices and life choices. Anyone who goes to a school or a university or a college and who stays around during the course of a lunchtime, you will find out that students are talking not about their books or classes or their teachers, they are talking about their debt. They are talking about their debt. This has been the dramatic shift and the change. As a result of this, we see this is having an effect upon the quality of life for the young people in this country. What have we tried to do and what have we done with this legislation? We know what the challenge is. We will have an opportunity to get into greater detail on that during the course of the debate. But what have we attempted to do, and what have we done in this legislation? What does this legislation provide? First of all, it provides a historic increase in need-based grant aid, $17 billion increase in need-based grant aid. That is the largest increase since the GI bill. What else does it do? Better payment options that cap a borrower's monthly payment at 15 percent of their monthly discretionary income. What does that mean? For any family in America, when their child graduates he or she will never pay more than 15 percent of their monthly income as they go on through their life. We know now that many individuals pay a good deal more than that, and it presents an extraordinary burden on them. We are saying to these young people and their families: You will never pay more than 15 percent of your monthly income. We are providing loan forgiveness for borrowers who work in public service jobs. What we are saying is any young person who works in a public service job--you work as a teacher, you work as a childcare provider, you work as a special education teacher or assistant working with students with disabilities, if you work with the fire department, if you work with the police department--you will repay your debt at 15 percent of your salary for a period of 10 years, and then your debt is forgiven--released--forgiven, effectively. It makes a major difference in terms of young people's career choices, where they might go. I will come back to this because this point is enormously important. We provide protection for working students by not penalizing their earnings. We've found that as students earn slightly more while attending college, suddenly their eligibility for financial assistance is changed and they fall further in debt to pay for their education. We have addressed that issue and addressed the longer loan deferment periods for borrowers in economic hardship. And we provide that benefit at no cost to the taxpayer by reforming the student loan industry so it works for students, not banks. This provision does not cost the taxpayers; it saves the taxpayers because we are taking the money from the banks and providing it for the students themselves. We will come back to demonstrate that the banks are going to do just fine later in this discussion. I want to show what we do in terms of the Pell Grant Program. Over five million young Americans participate in the Pell Grant Program. As you see in this chart, it has been effectively stuck at $4,000 or close to that in 2002, 2004, 2006, all during this recent period of time. Then, when our party, the Democrats, took over, we were able to bump that up to $4,310. And then under this proposal it will increase to $5,400 in 2011. We are trying to grow the program. It is costly but worth it. It makes a life-and-death difference to young people who need this program. Let me return to a point I was making a minute ago. If an individual worked in the public sector, this bill provides loan forgiveness. Graduates who work for 10 years in emergency management, public education, public health in a social service agency, public services for individuals with disabilities and the elderly, public service legal services programs, including prosecution or public defense, public school library sciences and other school-based service providers and teaching full-time at a tribal college or university--we are trying to say to young people graduating from college, yes, you will have debt, but we are saying you will never have to pay more than 15 percent of your monthly income, and if you go into this occupation long term it is effectively forgiven. How does it work? Let's take a starting teacher in Massachusetts. We have a book that is available for our colleagues that does the same kind of run-through for all 50 States. Say the annual salary is $35,000, they have a loan debt of $18,000, monthly payments today of $209, monthly payments under IBR would be $148, and monthly loan payment relief of $61. The student loan payment relief under the income-based repayment plan is $732 a year, and the amount forgiven under the new Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program will be $10,000 of their debt if they are a public school teacher in Massachusetts. That is just one example. You can make that applicable in any of the other areas. Those are the principal provisions that are included in this legislation. This is an important piece of legislation. It will make an important and significant difference to affordability of and accessibility to college, to needy children, to the students in this country. We welcome the very strong support we have had from the student associations and all the student groups. It will make a major difference for working families in terms of providing some additional kinds of relief. We have done this in a bipartisan way. We think this will make a major difference, and I am enormously grateful to my friend and colleague from Wyoming for all of his help. I will come back later. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that quorum calls during the consideration of the bill be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I use be charged to the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have a number of our colleagues that have called and indicated that they want to address these issues, and we welcome their statements and comments. I want to just mention, as I will during the course of the afternoon, some of the different provisions of the legislation. I know earlier in the day my friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, outlined some of the provisions in what we call the reauthorization legislation. I am in strong favor of reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. We are debating now the issue of loans and financing these programs, which is extremely important and urgent for students, and that is why this bill is on this fast track. This bill provides very important assistance to the neediest students and middle-income families, and we want that to go into effect as rapidly as possible. But we are also strongly committed to the other provisions of the reauthorization legislation that deal with the broader issues on education. I am hopeful during the course of the time that we are considering this current legislation that we will be able to work out a process and proceed to moving ahead with the reauthorization. The reauthorization, as has probably been mentioned by my colleague from Wyoming, curtails sweetheart deals between lenders and colleges which so many American families have been reading about and hearing about in recent years. It is an extraordinary scandal where too many of these lenders--and this has been true in my own State of Massachusetts as well as other parts of the country--have been involved in sweetheart agreements and kickbacks, which, obviously, are completely unethical, unacceptable, and, in some instances, criminal. But we provide provisions to curtail those kinds of abuses in the reauthorization legislation. We also simplify what we call FAFSA--the Free Application for Federal Student Assistance--to make applying for Federal aid easier. I have here, Mr. President, the current FAFSA form, and any preliminary view can see that this is enormously extensive, and extremely difficult, in many instances, to understand and to fill out. I am enormously grateful, and all of us should be, to our colleague and friend, Senator Enzi, who by training and profession was an accountant, and he was willing to take on the task of simplifying this application to ensure that there was going to be adequate protection in terms of the public interest and in terms of taxpayer interest, but also made it understandable and readable. So the reauthorization bill would create an EZ FAFSA, for the lowest-income students to use immediately, and would phase out the paper application for all students over a number of years. I will show you what has happened and give some of the background. In 2003-2004, about 1.5 million students who were likely eligible for the Pell grant did not fill out this form. They had such difficulty in going through it, and too often in the high schools they attended they didn't have the kind of professional assistance to help those young people to take advantage of federal student aid. Twenty-eight percent of the lowest income independent students didn't fill out the FAFSA in 2003-2004, and nearly all would have been eligible for the Pell grant. So the HELP Committee package shortens the FAFSA for the lowest income students, and for all students within the next few years. And the HELP Committee package increases the income level at which students are automatically eligible for the Pell grant as well. It might not sound like a very important provision, but this is an instance where this application is enough to seriously discourage many young people, particularly those in middle-income and low-income families, from moving ahead; and, as a result, an important loss to our country. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Washington is here, a member of our committee who has been a champion on education--she has been a school board member, a teacher in her own right, and has been a real leader on all of our educational issues, and was enormously valuable and helpful in the development of this legislation--and I am glad to yield such time as she may use on the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I wish to underline three very important provisions the Senator from Washington took a particular interest in, beyond the other provisions on the legislation. She mentioned these in her excellent comments, but I think it is worthwhile to take a moment to emphasize them. I refer to those provisions dealing with homeless and foster children as well as those in the military. Under the provisions the Senator from Washington championed, homeless children and foster children, too often left behind, have enormous challenges. But we know--we have all heard these extraordinary stories of the incredible drive that so many of these young people have, even while facing extraordinary challenges. Under the provisions on which she worked tirelessly, the bill will establish these children as independent students--obviously, they have to have the academic qualifications to be able to gain entry into the schools, private or public institutions--but they will be considered what we call independent students. This means they will be able to get some very small but important additional help and assistance that may be a lifeline to assist them and facilitate their admittance into schools and colleges; am I correct? I'm so pleased the Senator mentioned these two provisions because they are small items in a large piece of legislation, but I think they are extremely important. My colleague from Washington also mentioned the provisions dealing with those individuals who are in the military, to permit them to have a respite from repayment while they are on active duty service, serving our country. It seems they have challenges enough. They obviously will meet their responsibilities when they are no longer on active duty. But it seems to me the help that is being provided for those in the service is critical, and so, if the Senator will comment again on the difference these provisions can make to servicemembers, and those provisions to homeless children and foster children, I think it will be useful for our colleagues to know about.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield? I see the Senator from New York here. The result of the good Senator's life story, talking about the members of her family--the history of the GI bill is that for every dollar the Federal Government actually invested, $7 was returned. We are reminded again, this is not legislation that is going to cost the taxpayer a nickel and it is going to increase opportunity and hope, particularly for homeless children and foster children, because it will make them eligible for additional help and assistance which will effectively enhance their opportunity to go to college, and help reduce their debt after they get out of school. It is opening up opportunity. I again commend the Senator from Washington. She has been a leader on the issue of veterans and, as all of us remember so clearly in the wake of the Walter Reed scandal, her very clear and powerful voice, both before that and afterward, as a voice for those families and the service men and women. This is a practical and important provision in this reconciliation bill that will make a big difference to our service men and women and to their families. I thank her very much for all of her good work. I see the Senator from New York. I thank her for her extraordinary contribution in the development of this legislation. Senator Clinton has been a leader, in terms of understanding some of the ethical challenges that existed in the loan program and helping fashion some of the most important provisions in this legislation that are going to ensure that the resources which are out there, that are meant to go to students, go to students. I thank her for her extraordinary work in that area. Also, Senator Clinton has been a leader in developing provisions to support and assist nontraditional students, part-time students, and single mothers. They will have access to the assistance they need to complete their education. We have included in here, at her strong suggestion, the year-round provisions for the Pell Grant Program. We are making it available all year round because of the changing educational system and process. I thank her also for her work on the provisions that are enormously important to so many students and families--that is, helping individuals who work in order to try to offset some of their education costs. They get caught in this trap where they have higher income and therefore less help and assistance. This legislation increases the amount of income that is sheltered from the financial aid process in order to protect working students, and to reward their hard work. The good Senator was enormously creative and imaginative helping us deal with that situation. The young people of the country will be very grateful and appreciative for her strong leadership and good work. I yield to her such time on the bill as she might use.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding time remaining for debate on the Kennedy substitute amendment, an amendment be in order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend from Ohio for an excellent statement. He has reminded us when we first, in the early 1960s, had the national debate on whether there should be a Federal responsibility to help students to go on to schools and colleges. We had taken the step with the GI bill. We had taken some steps after Sputnik. But the real, major step had been the GI bill after World War II. We made that judgment in the 1960s. At the time, we were trying to find out how we were going to get the lending institutions involved. There was a real question about what kind of incentive they had to give to the lending institutions to get them involved, to make sure that the program was going to work. That is the issue we have been trying to address in this legislation. We have taken some $18 billion out of the lenders and returned it to the students. I think we will hear, probably later in this debate, that might be too much. We will come back and demonstrate that, even the Sallie Maes and the others are indicating even with this cut that they are expecting the profits in the years 2012 and 2013 to be in excess of $2 billion. As the Senator points out, we know even with these Government programs there is still a ways to go. We are making a downpayment, but I want to give assurances to the Senator from Ohio because he has been so concerned, this is a continuing, ongoing commitment certainly on my part. The part I want to particularly mention is that we have seen this real explosion in terms of the borrowing in the private sector at these extraordinary rates. We are attempting, with the Banking Committee, to try to work that out, so that is going to be consistent with what we are trying to do, and that is to make sure that, for middle-income families and working families, they are going to get the lowest possible costs. I commend the Senator. I happen to believe we ought to do that through an auction system. I stated that, expressed it. The Senator from New Hampshire has. We have a very modest provision--up to 20 percent of the funding in this will be subject to the auction process. We are doing a trial program with this. I think it will be very successful. But I think he would agree that we auction off bombs for the Federal Government every day--week, evidently. We auction off oil and gas leases. We auction off all kinds of different things. I would think in the long run, to make it available to the greatest numbers of students at the lowest possible costs, we ought to do it in the old-fashioned way of competition. We are not there yet, but I would be interested, if he is interested, in continuing to work on this whole area as we move along. This is a reauthorization that we plan to get, but I think there is a lot we can do in these next few years to continue to work on this.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see my friend and colleague from New Jersey on his feet. I will yield him time. I ask unanimous consent that during today's session, when the Senate considers the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski and an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy; that they be debated concurrently for as much time as they might consume; that no amendments be in order on either amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that on Thursday, July 19, the Senate resume consideration of these amendments at 12 noon and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment under this agreement; that the Murkowski amendment be the first vote in the sequence; that all debate time prior to the votes be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Thursday, there be 10 hours of debate remaining equally divided and controlled.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator from New Jersey should use on the bill. I wished to thank the Senator from New Jersey. We had been meeting earlier in the afternoon with a Hispanic task force. Their priorities were the areas of education, early education, No Child Left Behind, access in terms of higher education. Senator Menendez and Senator Salazar were leaders with that group. I am always moved by the Senator from New Jersey's own story, about the importance of these Pell grants and the importance of loans, his own life experience as well as those of his friends. I hope he will at least share some of that with us this afternoon. It is an inspiring story. If there is any reason for the efforts we are making this afternoon, the Senator from New Jersey is an excellent example.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I use on the bill. I wish to thank the Senator from New Jersey for his excellent presentation, particularly for his pointing out a number of features of this legislation, one of which is that we increase the opportunity for young people who are going to school and college who are out there working, we permit them to be able to earn some more without losing their need-based help and assistance in terms of education. That is an extremely important one. As the Senator was pointing out, we are in a situation where a number of those individuals would go out and work and work hard and be able to get additional income and then risk their need-based assistance. Secondly, the expansion for the eligibility for the Pell grants, which is enormously important. We have been attempting to do that for a number of years. That will open up the opportunity to more than 4 million children who are in Pell grant eligibility now. That is going to open up additional opportunity. This is incredibly important. I thank the Senator. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during today's session, when the Senate considers the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski and an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, they be debated concurrently for as much time as they might consume; that no amendments be in order on either amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that on Thursday, July 19, the Senate resume consideration of these amendments at 12 noon and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment under this agreement; that the Murkowski amendment be the first vote in the sequence; that all debate time prior to the votes be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Thursday, there be 10 hours of debate remaining, equally divided and controlled.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, leadership has instructed me to say there will be no further rollcall votes in light of the agreement. Amendment No. 2330 to Amendment No. 2327 Madam President, I call up my amendment that I believe is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have done a lot in this bill. We provide $14 billion in additional grants to students, $3 billion in debt relief, for a total of $17 billion in college aid to students. This will open wider the doors of college for America's neediest families and provide benefits for all students. We have raised the maximum grant for Pell-eligible students to $5,100 next year and $5,400 in 2011. But we need not stop there. We should allocate all available funds to continue adding to the need-based aid beyond the increases we make in the next 5 years, and this amendment will allow us to do that. It allocates billions of additional dollars to extend the maximum need-based grants between 2014 and 2017, continuing our promise to help millions of needy students to pay for college. This is, I believe, a very welcome reversal from the last 5 years, when the administration basically broke its promise to increase the Pell grant year after year. Now that policy has changed and shifted. We know what the stakes are when students are not able to afford college. Each year, over 400,000 talented, qualified students do not attend a 4-year college. Twenty years ago, the maximum Pell grant covered 55 percent of a 4-year college and today it only covers a third. This amendment will continue what I consider the march of progress in terms of the outyears. We are addressing the first 5 years in the bill, but obviously these programs will last beyond that. We have demonstrated that this bill saves billions of dollars, and those resources will be devoted toward helping students, and that is enormously worthwhile. Madam President, I yield time off the bill. The Senator from New Jersey was talking about the importance of the Pell program and the student loan program and how important this is in terms of our competitiveness. It is worthwhile to point out that as I mentioned, spending under the GI bill, over a 6-year period, represented a third of the total Federal budget for 1951. That gives us some dimension of the priority this country places on education. The GI Bill was responsible, more than any other action, for helping create the great middle class of our country which has been such a pillar of strength for our democracy, for our economic strength, and for our military strength as well. The GI bill, during that period of time, produced 67,000 doctors, 91,000 scientists, 238,000 teachers, and 450,000 engineers. It also funded the education of three Presidents, three Supreme Court Justices, and a dozen Senators who served in this very Chamber. Pretty good investment for this Nation, and it is the kind of investment we ought to continue for the young people of this country. I wish to review one of the very important aspects of this legislation. I again commend our colleagues. This was a bipartisan effort. I wish to indicate again one of the very compelling aspects of this legislation is not only the historic increase in the need-based grant aid, but it is the loan forgiveness for borrowers in public service jobs. I will give a few examples. What do we mean by loan forgiveness? We indicated the types of jobs that would be eligible for this program. I will put that chart up in a minute. But certainly a public school teacher is a good example. This is the average salary for a starting teacher in my State--$35,000. The average loan debt is $18,000. This is about the national average. Monthly payments today would be $209 and the loan payment relief under this bill would be some $61 each month. The yearly student loan payment relief under the new income-based repayment plan, the annual relief they would receive would be $732. That is not insignificant. If they remain a teacher for 10 years, they save $10,000 of their $18,000 debt, effectively the remainder of their debt is forgiven; $10,000 forgiven. Not insignificant. Let me point out what jobs are included in this public service loan forgiveness program. Obviously, emergency management, public safety, public law enforcement, public education, early childhood education, childcare, public health and social work in public service agencies, public services for individuals with disabilities and the elderly, public interest legal services, public defenders, school librarians, school-based service providers, teaching full time at a tribal college or university. All of those--and that is not exclusive, it is inclusive. Let me show what this would be in another State. This is a social worker in North Carolina with one child with an annual salary of $37,000; loan debt, $16,000. They would save some $500 a year in what they would be obligated to pay, and if they did this for 10 years, $7,300 would be forgiven. That gives us an idea of what happens with a teacher and what would happen with a social worker. Let's look at how this bill will help a public school teacher in Iowa whose annual salary is $27,000. They would save a yearly payment of some $1,300. After 10 years, they would have $16,000 forgiven. This gives us a pretty good idea of what this program does. In this case, that is almost half their total debt forgiven, and they have seen a reduction in both their monthly and annual payments. This makes a big difference--a few hundred dollars here and a few hundred dollars there--it makes an enormous difference. Now this past year, tuition and fees increased just 4 percent at four-year public colleges in Massachusetts--up just a couple hundred dollars. We have UMass Boston in our public university system, and about 60 percent of the students there are first-generation individuals. It is an extraordinary place and getting better and stronger. Needless to say, tuition has gone up a good deal there and at colleges across the nation in recent years. This can be devastating to low-income students, and especially to first-generation college students. In the UMass system, tuition and fees increased nearly 40 percent from 1996 to 2006. We know that a few hundred dollars makes a key difference. It makes an extraordinary difference for these young people, when they are making a judgment whether to go to school and whether they are willing to take on the indebtedness. The idea that they know when they get out of school they will be able to go into these public service types of jobs and will be able to get relief is extraordinary. One of the incredible phenomenons taking place at universities and colleges today is volunteerism. The number who are volunteering at schools and colleges all over our country is enormously impressive. This is incredibly encouraging. There is a great willingness and desire to be a part of trying to meet some of the Nation's challenges. So many of those opportunities involve some aspects of involvement in public employment. This legislation gives young people a real opportunity, even if they come from homes with limited resources, that they can attend a fine college, and then they can go on to one of these public service jobs and make a real difference in their community, in part because they get assistance in this legislation in terms of debt relief. That is what is included in this legislation. There is a very significant expansion of the Pell grant, a very important innovative and I think creative concept in loan forgiveness for those who are going to give something back to the country because of what the country has done for them. It provides important relief for their families in interest payments, the expansion, in terms of young people who are working, to permit them to earn a little more without losing their need-based assistance and the recognition that we ought to expand that opportunity for families with children. Thirty thousand dollars, that sounds like a lot, but we are looking at those individuals and families who are earning that amount. That is a pretty hard-working family, needless to say, and they have children who want to be a part of the whole American dream and contribute to this country. They understand the importance of their continued education. This gives a pretty good idea about where we are on some of these programs. It is important we understand these programs. For those who are interested, we are still trying to work out a consent agreement so we can consider the authorization as well. Senator Enzi and I have been communicating through the course of the day with our leadership and other members. We certainly hope that by tomorrow we have some recommendations. Both of us understand the importance of doing this. It has been mentioned over the course of the day the extraordinarily important ethical issues with the student loan industry, as well as other significant provisions, included in that reauthorization legislation. The ethical issues is an important aspect of the bill, and we should address that aspect and our reauthorization does that. The simplification of the application for federal aid is a key aspect in terms of accessibility to college. That is a key element. There are some other provisions that have been added by members of the committee that have been described. This is a very important reauthorization. There is strong bipartisan support for the legislation. It is important we pass it. We urge our colleagues to work with us to see that this is done at the earliest possible time. My colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, I know is on his way over here. We have had a good number of our colleagues who have spoken on this legislation. Many on our committee have spoken. We are very grateful to all of the members of the committee, as I mentioned earlier, for their involvement and assistance. Senator Reed worked very closely with Senator Enzi on what we call EZ FAFSA, the application for student aid, and that is enormously important. He has spoken today. Many on our committee members have talked about this legislation, and we are grateful for all of their efforts. We have solid legislation. We are not looking for additional amendments. But if that is the desire of our Members, we hope they will communicate that to us as quickly as possible. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, before the Senate now is the reconciliation provisions dealing with higher education. There are 20 hours that will be available, 10 hours on either side; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these are very difficult days in our history, and I welcome the comments of my friend and colleague from Arizona and his views about the position of the United States and its policy with regard to Iraq. He reminds us that we ought to free ourselves from these political considerations. This situation is too demanding. The value of our involvement in terms of American service men and women is too dear. The resources of this country are too important to squander them. A number of us had serious reservations about involving the United States in military engagement, a war with Iraq. A number of us still remember being on the Armed Services Committee and listening to the combat commanders--the first panel in the Armed Services Committee on that particular day. We listened to General Hoar, from Hyde Park, MA, a highly decorated marine. We saw a number of decorations for bravery and courage in Vietnam. We listened to General Nash, who had been in the first gulf war and had been our Commander in Bosnia. We read through General Zinni's comments at that time. We listened to General Clark as well. They are a group of combat commanders, and all urged that the United States keep its focus and attention on those who brought the tragedy to the United States on 9/11. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida were the real danger and threat to the United States. They were located in Afghanistan. They said that is where our focus and attention should be and that involvement in Iraq would be clearly not in our interest. I remember those extraordinary words of General Hoar, who said if we become involved in Iraq, the battle in Baghdad that he foresaw would make the first fifteen minutes of ``Private Ryan'' look like a church picnic. ``Private Ryan'' was that extraordinary film by Steven Spielberg. That made a very profound impression upon me. That impression was enhanced when we listened to the statements that were made by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld when they talked about the weapons of mass destruction being on the north, south, east, and west of Baghdad. The ranking member of our committee, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, had suggested that we give information to the inspectors. The response was that we cannot give it to the inspectors because Saddam Hussein will move them. Senator Levin said: Well, why don't we then watch where they are being moved to, to be able to convince the world community about these weapons of mass destruction? At least it was assumed by the response that was given at that time that we were going to make available to the inspection teams the locations of those weapons of mass destruction. We found out, historically, that never happened because there weren't any. So there was important debate and discussion within the administration. Should we follow the precedent of President Bush 1, which said this is a very important issue about going to war in Iraq, and rather than attaining it in the course of an election, let's have an election and then have the Congress make a judgment and decision. The decision said public opinion at that time was overwhelmingly to go to war, and we were going to have that vote just prior to the election. I hope we are going to spare ourselves this idea that those of us who are supporting the Levin-Reed amendment are looking at the politics of it. We saw the realities of it when we made the mistake in going to war. Secondly, we are very mindful that Iraq is a country with 26 million or 27 million people. It basically has an extraordinary history and incredible culture, amazing oil reserves, many different kinds of assets. But it was defeated 10 years ago by the United States of America in a war--defeated. We had the air space, controlling that over Iraq. We have the best fighting force in the world over there now for in excess of 4 years fighting. As many of us have said, the military has done everything they were called to do. Does anybody doubt the finest military force which swept through western Europe and Africa and Italy, went through the Pacific in less time in World War II? We have had them over there bogged down in this country of 27 million people. Has anybody doubted that we need more than a military resolution and solution, and the fact that we continue to keep the American service men and women in harm's way, that we are somehow protecting them? Is that what we are being asked to believe after they have been over there for 4 years, when they are able and capable of doing everything which they have done, and done so bravely, I say it is time to bring them home. I say it is time to support the Levin amendment. I hope during this debate we are not going to have the continued references on the issues of patriotism. We have worn out that argument, and we heard it all. It didn't work in the last election, where many of us who were strongly opposed to the war faced those kinds of drum beats. Secondly, our Founding Fathers had a very important view about what the Senate of the United States should be and the importance of protecting minority views in this body. This was going to be the institution that was going to be able to permit individuals who represented minority views, differing views, to be able to express themselves. As we have learned historically so often, those expressed by a small group often become the majority accepted views in future years. The Founding Fathers understood that. They wanted to make sure those ideas and concepts were going to be protected. What the Founding Fathers never anticipated was that rules were going to be used to abuse the American people's right to be able to express themselves, particularly on issues of war and peace. That is what we are seeing now--delay for delay's sake, not delay so that we can have greater information about what is happening over in Iraq. That is not the issue. It is delay for delay's sake, a refusal to permit the Senate to express itself. The House has expressed itself. Permit the Senate to express itself. Let's have a debate and discussion. The American people have made up their minds on this issue. We don't have to doubt that. The American people have made up their minds. They want their elected representatives to speak. I understand why the Republicans don't want their name on that rollcall as supporting this President, this war, at this time. I understand it. That, my colleagues, is really what this is about. People just refuse, don't want it. Let's have some process or procedure, some way to avoid calling the roll and taking a stand on an issue of war and peace. That is what this debate, at least for the next several hours, is going to be about. Are we going to be able to permit this institution to function in the way it was intended to function; that is, at a time when the American people have made a judgment and a decision on a particular issue, to be able to call the roll and have accountability, or whether we are going to be denied that. After all of the rhetoric about the role in history and the importance of this issue, that is where it comes down. So, Mr. President, this is an extremely important debate. What is so important to understand is this is not an issue that is going away. Those of us who were opposed to the war continue to be opposed to it. Listen to the argument about what the consequences are going to be. What are the consequences going to be now, what are they going to be in 3 years, what are they going to be in 5 years, what are they going to be in 7 years? Many of us are sufficiently uncertain about this issue that we voted ``no'' in terms of giving to this President the authority to move this country and commit it in a way we have done so. America is paying an enormous cost for a war we never should have fought, and it is time to bring it to an end. The war has divided us at home. It has made us more isolated in the world. Never before, even in the Vietnam war, has America taken such massive military action with so little international support. As the intelligence community confirmed yet again today, the war has become a significant recruitment tool for al-Qaida. What was the surge intended to accomplish? The surge was meant to reduce violence; it has not. To permit reconstruction; it has not. To promote reconciliation; it has not. All we have to do is read the Administration's own reports. As the intelligence community confirmed yet again today, the war has become a significant recruitment tool for al-Qaida. The NIE says: We assess that Al Qaeda's association with Al Qaeda Iraq helps Al Qaeda to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks. This has obviously made the war on terrorism harder, not easier, to win. Nevertheless, the administration still continues to turn a deaf ear to all the voices calling for change. It continues to plead for more and more time to pursue its failed course in Iraq. Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster any effort to outline a clear timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. The disastrous consequences of our policy could have been avoided if the President and his advisers had asked the right questions before rushing headlong into an unnecessary and unjust war. In my church, there are six principles which guide the determination of just war. They were developed by Saint Augustine in the 5th century and expanded by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. To be just, a war must have a just cause, confronting a danger that is beyond question. It must be declared by a legitimate authority acting on behalf of the people. It must be driven by the right intention, not ulterior, self-interested motives. It must be a last resort. It must be proportional so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good achieved. And it must have a reasonable chance of success. These are the sound criteria by which the President should have judged our war in Iraq, but he failed our men and women in uniform by refusing to seek honest answers to these important questions before recklessly plunging the Nation into war. We now know with crystal clarity that the war in Iraq did not meet these criteria. Saddam did not pose the kind of threat that justified this war, but we went to war anyway without legitimate support from the international community. The administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. War with Iraq was most certainly not the last resort. All options were not pursued. We should have given inspectors more time to reveal that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction. The human cost of this war has been unacceptable. More than 3,600 Americans have been killed and nearly 27,000 wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and Iraq has descended into civil war. The administration's incompetence in waging this misguided war has left no reasonable chance for success. Americans have spoken clearly and urgently about the need to end the war, and it is time for the President to listen to their pleas. We should end this war with a scaled-back mission for our troops and a clear timetable for withdrawal specified in the Levin-Reed amendment. America has been sadly diminished in the world because of this colossal blunder. Anti-Americanism is on the rise. We have seemed to have lost our way, our vision, and our confidence in the future. In his farewell address to the Nation in January 1989, Ronald Reagan described one of the singular triumphs of his Presidency: the recovery of America's standing and morale. I believe he was right when he said: America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership. Other nations understood that the best guarantee of peace and stability was for the United States to live up to its ideals as a beacon of hope for the rest of the planet. We were admired for our democracy and respected for our economic strength. Today, others have stopped listening to us the way they once did. At the end of June, the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported that since 2002, the image of the United States has plummeted throughout the world. Our image is abysmal in most Muslim countries and continues to decline among the people of many of America's oldest allies. We have strained the extraordinary alliances that advance our ideals, as well as our interests. At the root of much of the anti-Americanism that has surfaced in recent years is the perception of American unilateralism in international affairs. I am astonished when some say it does not matter that so many in the world no longer respect the United States. Of course, it matters. It matters to our security, as it has mattered since the first days of our Republic. The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence acknowledges the importance of a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. That respect is as important today as it was when our Founders signed the Declaration, affirming it on the first Fourth of July. To restore America's standing and strength, we must end the war in Iraq and recapture that combination of realism and idealism that has inspired Americans for generations. Ending this unacceptable war is essential to our security and to regaining our respect in the world. The great challenges facing our fragile planet require an abundance of hope that only a united and a determined America can provide. America has to lead. America has to inspire. But we cannot do so if we remain bogged down in Iraq's civil war. Might alone cannot make America right. By prescribing our own rules for the modern world, we have deprived our great Nation of the moral claim that is the basis of our being, the purpose of our power, and we are paying an exorbitant price. We can and sometimes must defend democracy by force, but we cannot impose it by force. Democratic principles are universal, but democracy must find its champions within each country's culture and traditions. We need to end the war and regain a time when America is able to seek common ground with our friends. We need to renew the alliances that kept the world safe for human rights and human survival when the threat for nuclear war was a clear and present danger. We will always defend our interests, but we put them at grave risk when we act unilaterally in an independent world. We live in a time of enormous possibility and enormous risk. No nation is guaranteed a limitless future of prosperity or security. We have to work for it. We have to sacrifice for it. The sacrifices we are making in Iraq are no longer worth the immense cost in human lives or the immense cost to our national prestige and interest. President Bush has squandered every opportunity to stabilize Iraq. Any honest assessment can realistically lead to only one conclusion: America's interest will best be served when our military disengages from Iraq. Certainly, there will be violence when our combat troops leave, but there will be far more violence if we continue to police Iraq's civil war indefinitely, as the President proposes. Last week President Bush said, ``There is war fatigue in America. It's affecting our psychology.'' For once the President is right. There is fatigue in America. Americans are tired of an administration whose ill-conceived notion of a preventive war plunged this Nation into Iraq's bloody civil war. Americans are tired of an administration that told us the mission was accomplished when the tally of American dead was only beginning to mount. Americans are tired of an administration that continues to promise that hope is just around the corner and begs for time for a policy that stands no chance of succeeding now, in September, or ever. Years ago, one of the giants of the Senate said: Partisanship should stop at the water's edge. Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican from Michigan, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, worked closely with President Truman to lay the foundation for the foreign policy of the United States that could guide us through the Cold War. Senator Vandenberg set the bar high for us in the Senate. We can aspire to that idea, but it is hard to achieve it in this Congress, as it has been in other Congresses. Over the past few weeks, a shift has begun to take place, not as quickly as many of us feel is necessary, but nonetheless a change. Two weeks ago, in a speech on this floor, one of the successors of Arthur Vandenberg as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, our distinguished colleague from Indiana who was himself chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, reminded us that we do not owe the President our unquestioning agreement, but we do owe him and the American people our constructive engagement. Last Friday, Senator Lugar was joined by the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, in offering an amendment that would require the administration to review our Iraq strategy and outline plans for an orderly redeployment of our troops. Two weeks ago in a statement on this floor, Senator Lugar said: The United States has violated some basic national security precepts during our military engagement in Iraq. We have overestimated what the military can achieve, we have set goals that are unrealistic, and we have inadequately factored in the broader regional consequences of our actions. Perhaps more critically, our focus on Iraq has diverted us from opportunities to change the world in directions that strengthen our national security. I agree with that judgment, although I believe the Warner-Lugar amendment does not go far enough in bringing this war to an end. It is undeniable that the American people have turned against this war, and it is imperative for the President to understand and accept that basic fact. We call for the President to end the war, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans who are deeply concerned about the perilous path on which the Nation is moving. The American people understand there are no easy options, but they also understand that the President's strategy simply does not protect U.S. interests. They understand it is wrong to buy time, to hand off the mess in Iraq to the next President, and to keep our troops in harm's way with a policy that is not worthy of their sacrifice. The overarching question is not whether we leave Iraq but how we leave Iraq. Disastrous choices and disastrous leadership have brought us to this dangerous point. We need to redefine our strategic goal in Iraq and the region and have a realistic policy that supports that objective. Whatever we do, it is going to be difficult, but we need to move forward and begin the process, and soon. We need to work with Iraq's neighbors to mitigate the damage the President's policies have created and minimize outside intervention, but we cannot allow the fear of instability to put the brakes on the process of military disengagement. Majorities in free countries bordering Iraq--Turkey, Jordan, and Kuwait--say our troops should be removed. In Turkey, one of our most important allies in the region bordering Iraq, only 9 percent support our position. Even in Iraq, just a few months ago, tens of thousands marched demanding an end to what they call the ``American occupation.'' Each country in the region has an interest in Iraq's stability, and we need to work with them diplomatically to find common ground and mitigate the damage caused by the President's failed policy. They need to come forward and work with our Nation and play a constructive role. Part of that effort needs to address the growing needs of the millions who have fled the violence in Iraq. More than 2 million Iraqis have fled to neighboring Jordan and Syria, and they are a destabilizing force in the region. The toll of suffering is immense. The danger these tragic circumstances pose for our national security and the countries in the region hosting these vulnerable people is real. The anger, the desperation, the hopelessness that envelope these refugees is a breeding ground for terrorists and will undoubtedly be exploited by our enemies. America has a fundamental moral obligation to help, especially those who have supported America in Iraq. There is no doubt that Iraqis who have worked in positions in direct support of the United States have been killed or injured in reprisals for that support. Many more Iraqis associated with the United States have fled in fear and lost all they had. We must keep faith with those who now have a bull's-eye on their back because of their ties with our country. At a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, Iraqis offered chilling testimony about the dangers they face because of their association with America. A translator for U.S. and coalition forces told of seeing his name posted on death lists and said his friends turned on him because they believed he was a traitor. An Iraqi truck driver who delivered water to American forces said that terrorist groups had targeted him, his wife, and their six children because of his support for our soldiers. Not only do we have an obligation to help those who have helped us, we have a precedent for action. As the war in Vietnam drew to a close, President Ford emphasized America's duty to rescue those who had helped and assisted us. He called our response to that refugee crisis a reaffirmation of America's awareness of the roots and ideals of our society, and he personally greeted Vietnamese refugees on their arrival here. But, sadly, there are many Iraqis working with our Armed Forces, our diplomatic mission, and our reconstruction teams in Iraq who have performed valiantly but have been abandoned by our Government in their hour of need. Because of this support, insurgents have threatened and attacked their family members. Many have lost their lives, and many more have lost their houses, property, and livelihood. For some, it will be too dangerous to ever return. America cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees, but we must show leadership by accepting far greater numbers of refugees closely associated with our military operation. Keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, as the President proposes, is simply not the solution to the humanitarian and refugee crisis. The consequences of the decisions we make here in Congress profoundly affect our military, their families, and the communities they have left. We have an obligation to our soldiers to make sensible decisions that will not place them needlessly in harm's way. In February, I spoke about the 65 soldiers from Massachusetts who had died in Iraq. Since then, Massachusetts has lost 10 more. We in Massachusetts feel especially deeply the loss of these sons and daughters killed in Iraq: PVT John Landry, SGT Adam Kennedy, CPT Anthony Palermo, SSG William Callahan, 1LT Ryan P. Jones, SPC Kyl Little, LCpl Walter O'Haire, LT Andrew Bacevich, SGT Daniel Newsome, and SSG Robb Rolfing. We salute them, we pray for their families, we honor their sacrifice today and every day. We must insist on a policy worthy of their sacrifice. The choice is clear: We can continue on the same failed course as those who are leading this filibuster in the Senate are proposing or we can adopt the Levin-Reed amendment and begin to bring our troops home to the hero's welcome they have earned and so obviously deserve. For the sake of our men and women in uniform and our national security, I hope we will change course and approve the Levin-Reed amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.