Innovations for our Nation's Vital Educational Needs for Technology Act

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 362, and yield myself such time as I may consume for an opening statement.

In 2005, the National Academies assembled a blue-ribbon committee of national leaders in academia, business and government to address concerns about the national prosperity and the global economy in the 21st century. The Academies' report was entitled, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' That report catalogs a number of worrisome indicators and presents recommendations that the Nation must follow to maintain its competitiveness.

What did this distinguished committee tell us is most important to the future of the economic health of our Nation? Here is the first recommendation from the report: Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education.

The Gathering Storm report goes on to tell us where the focus should be in efforts to improve K-12 science and mathematics education. In brief, it says, ``Focus on the teachers.'' H.R. 362 follows that blueprint.

In January, I partnered with Mr. Hall, ranking minority member on the Committee on Science and Technology, to introduce H.R. 362, whose purpose is to implement all of the action items from the Gathering Storm report and address the report's first recommendation.

I want to thank Mr. Hall for his assistance in developing this bill. With his support, it was favorably reported by the Science and Technology Committee by a unanimous vote.

This bill is endorsed by a wide variety of educational organizations and business coalitions, including the Association of American Universities, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Competitiveness, the National Education Association, the National

Science Teachers Association, and the STEM Education Coalition. These organizations are enthusiastic about H.R. 362 because it will dramatically improve the national corps of math and science teachers.

We call the first title of the bill ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act.'' The bill will create thousands of new teachers with content and teaching skill expertise in their area of teaching.

The vehicle for accomplishing this goal is the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation. Noyce awards go to universities that build model programs for recruiting math and science students into teaching. These programs provide mentoring, early field experiences, and a streamlined path toward teaching certification. Students who enroll in this program will receive $10,000-per-year scholarships. In return, they will make commitments of several years to the teaching profession.

H.R. 362 will also create summer institutes and graduate programs that provide sustained, content-oriented professional development to in-service teachers through the Math and Science Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation. We have a critical shortage of math and science teachers in the U.S., and many of our math and science teachers have no degree or certification in the field they teach. In fact, 87 percent of middle school and 58 percent of high school physical science teachers lack these qualifications.

This bill tackles this problem from both ends. On the one end, we bring in a new cadre of math and science teachers who are well-educated and well-prepared. That is what the Noyce program does. On the other end, we improve the teachers that we have through innovative, effective programs led by disciplinary faculty from higher education. That is what the Math and Science Partnerships program does.

Other provisions of H.R. 362 include an expansion of the STEM Talent Expansion Program at the National Science Foundation, a program to enhance the undergraduate education of the future science and engineering workforce, and a pilot program at the NSF to improve laboratory science in high-need secondary schools.

To maintain our high national standard of living, we need a workforce that is prepared in a world-class math and science education system. But there is a dark cloud looming. American students have performed poorly in recent years on an assortment of international tests of math and science achievement. That does not bode well for the future. Our next generation of innovators, where will they come from? That is what the gathering storm on the horizon is all about. To rise above it, we need to reform the math and science teaching profession. That is what this legislation now before us will do.

The stakes are high and the concern is urgent. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 362.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. The NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, as amended by H.R. 362, is specifically designed to help place highly qualified STEM teachers in every classroom across the Nation. I further agree with the gentleman that it is particularly important to reduce the number of out-of-field teachers in the schools that have a high proportion of minority students, who are currently underrepresented in science and technology.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield

further, let me first of all thank the gentleman for his recommendation and assure you that it is my intention when we go to conference on H.R. 362 to work to increase the size of the Noyce scholarship to $12,000 per year for students who agree to carry out their teaching commitment in high-need schools.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I certainly do; and I once again thank the gentleman for bringing this up.

As the gentleman points out, H.R. 362 now requires the National Science Foundation track the proportion of Noyce graduates who elect to teach in high-need schools. I will seek to expand this provision in conference to require NSF to assess the effect of increasing the size of scholarships on attracting graduates of the program to teach in high-need schools.

Mr. Chairman, once again we are on the same page. I agree with the gentleman that an important goal of the Noyce program is to reduce disparities in the distribution of highly qualified STEM teachers among schools in different regions of the Nation. I support the gentleman's proposed modification to section 103 of the bill and will pursue this change in conference.

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the gentleman for his constructive efforts in making a good bill even better.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on Education and Labor.

Committee on Education and Labor,

Washington, DC, April 3, 2007.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 362, the

``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math

Scholarship Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on

Science. As you know, the Committee on Education and Labor

has a jurisdictional interest in H.R. 362, particularly as we

move forward to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this

term.

Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly,

I do not intend to request the sequential referral of H.R.

362 to the Committee on Education and Labor. However, I do so

only with the understanding that this procedural route should

not be construed to prejudice this Committee's jurisdictional

interests and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the

Committee on Education and Labor in the future. In addition,

should this bill or similar legislation be considered in a

conference with the Senate, I would expect members of the

Committee on Education and Labor to be appointed to the

conference committee on such measures.

Finally, I ask that you include a copy of our exchange of

letters in your committee's report on H.R. 362 and in the

Congressional Record during the consideration of this bill.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do

not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

George Miller,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say amen to most of Dr. Ehlers' eloquent statement. He is a very constructive and positive force on our committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), a former science teacher.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his support for this bill, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who has spent so much time working on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for his generosity. There is a lot of interest in this bill.

I would like to yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), another active member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the vice chairman of the Science and Technology Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), the former State senator.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to the generosity of our ranking member, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of his fellow Texans (Mr. Hinojosa), chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the amount of time that we have left here?

Mr. Chairman, let me take just a moment to thank the staff, Jim Wilson, and our minority staff for the time they have put in on this bill. Two years ago, Lamar Alexander, and our former chairman, Sherry Boehlert, asked the National Academies to do a recommendation on the competitiveness of America in the 21st century. The recommendation was good news and bad news. The bad news was that we are in a very competitive environment and that we are on a losing track.

The good news was we had some recommendations. That is what we tried to do. We didn't try to make a Democratic or Republican bill; we took their recommendations and made a bipartisan bill. I think that today the bipartisan bill is the result of that. I again thank all the Members for their constructive efforts in doing this.

I understand that the Speaker is so committed to this bill that she is on her way to the floor, and she is not only on her way, but she has arrived, and I yield her the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation aims to increase the number of first-rate math and science teachers in the U.S.

The program targets two resources from which to recruit these teachers: one, undergraduates who are majoring in the math and science field; and, two,

science and math engineering professionals who want to switch to a teaching degree.

The reported version of H.R. 362 considerably expands the Noyce program. It also amends a part of the program that targets undergraduates. But the part of the program that targets professionals was left for the most part unchanged. This amendment establishes within the Noyce program a new model for recruiting professionals to a teaching career.

This new model is based on a program called Math for America, which has shown astonishing success in making first-rate teachers out of former scientists and engineers. Math for America was launched in 2004 by James Simons, a mathematician who founded an enormously successful private investment firm in New York City.

Mr. Simon's philanthropic foundation has provided much of the funding for Math for America. This is just the third year of Math for America, but already they have recruited 90 teachers for New York City public schools. The math for America model has so much in common with the Noyce program at the National Science Foundation.

Consistent with the Math for America model, my amendment has the following features: An institution of higher education wishing to establish this new program must create a partnership with at least one non-Federal entity to be eligible for the NSF support; a scientist or engineer participating in the program must demonstrate advance content knowledge through a nationally recognized standardized test; participants take specialized education courses in a 16-month teacher certification program during which they receive a stipend; graduates from the program must teach in a secondary school for a period of 4 years, during which they receive a teaching supplement to their ordinary salary.

The teaching supplements are provided by the partnerships from non- Federal sources. This amendment, therefore, adds a component to the Noyce program to develop the kind of public/private partnership that we see working so well in Math for America.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to thank Dr. Gingrey for his support for this bill and, more importantly, his constructive role that he plays on the Science and Technology Committee. Again, I want to thank Mr. Hall for his constructive role, and also for his generosity in having additional time for us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Noyce program at the National Science Foundation has up to now required scholarship recipients to teach in high-need schools. H.R. 362 substantially expands the program, scaling it up from fewer than 1,000 pre-service STEM teachers per year to 10,000 per year.

The Noyce program is being scaled up by H.R. 362 to address the needs of schools in all parts of the Nation which have large numbers of out- of-field STEM teachers. For example, the percentage of physical science teachers in

middle schools with neither a major in the field nor certification is nearly 90 percent.

As part of enlarging the program's scale, the bill also removes the requirement that all graduates teach in a high-need school. But the bill also adds in its place an incentive for teachers to serve in high- need schools. The amendment I am proposing makes clear that we are not backing away from our firm commitment to address the requirements of high-need schools.

The amendment has two provisions. The first provision requires the NSF to broadly disseminate information about the program, including to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This is to ensure that students in minority schools have improved chances of seeing a minority teacher prepared through a Noyce program.

The second provision requires the foundation to maintain a clearinghouse on teaching opportunities in high-need schools. This will assist Noyce scholars in finding their ideal placement.

Without this amendment, Noyce scholars seeking placement might not know which schools meet the definition of high-need in any given year or which such schools have openings.

This amendment will both help increase the number of individuals from minority-serving institutions who participate in the Noyce program and will help recruit Noyce scholars to teaching positions in high-need schools. I recommend adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank Dr. Ehlers for his support for this bill, but more importantly for making a good bill a better bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, this motion simply states the status quo, and we are glad to accept it.

Yes, he does.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment with the majority leader, Senator Reid, and Senators Leahy, Dodd, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, Whitehouse, Wyden, Durbin, Schumer, Obama, Sanders, Menendez, Lautenberg, and Brown to H.R. 2764, the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill.

The amendment is one I have offered before. I will not hesitate, if I must, to offer it again and again and again.

The 17 cosponsors is the greatest number we have ever had for this amendment.

It requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of enactment, and requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, with the bulk of our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: providing security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure, training the Iraqi security forces, providing training and equipment to U.S. service men and women to ensure their safety and security, and conducting targeted operations limited in duration and scope against members of al-Qaida and others affiliated with international terrorist organizations.

Some of my colleagues complain that we spent too much time debating Iraq this year. They would rather talk about other issues. Well, we have a lot of important priorities, but nothing is more important to me or my constituents than ending this disastrous war.

As I do every year, I held a town hall meeting in every county in Wisconsin this year. That is 72 meetings for those of you who are not from the Badger State. I heard a lot from my constituents at the meetings about health care and education. But the No. 1 issue I heard about was foreign affairs, particularly the war in Iraq.

But the No. 1 issue I heard about was foreign affairs, particularly the war in Iraq. Let me tell you--they weren't asking why Congress is spending so much time on this issue. They weren't asking us to give the President more time for his so-called surge. Like Americans all across the country, they want an end to this war, and they want to know what is stopping us.

The Senate needs to address the concerns and demands of our constituents, who more than a year ago voted for a change in congressional leadership in large measure because of the debacle in Iraq. But we have yet to follow through and end this misguided war, before more Americans are injured and killed. And we are about to adjourn for the year and let the war drag on even longer.

We hear a lot from supporters of the President that violence in Iraq is down right now, and therefore we are on the path to victory. That argument would be a lot more convincing if the administration had a viable strategy for success. The surge may buy time, but as long as there is no political solution to Iraq's problems, we are just postponing the inevitable resurgence in violence, and our brave troops will continue bearing the brunt of it.

That is not a strategy for success. It is not even a strategy. It is a way of pushing this problem off to the next President and the next Congress, while our troops put their lives on the line, and our constituents foot the bill. Or, I should say, our constituents' children and grandchildren foot the bill, because we can't even be bothered to figure out a way to pay for the war. We are just handing the tab to future generations, sticking them with hundreds of billions of dollars of more deficit spending.

I am certainly pleased that violence in Iraq has declined in the last few months. Once again, our troops have showed they excel in any challenge with which they are tasked. This doesn't change the fact, however, that this year was the bloodiest year for Americans since the war began, and there are still a few weeks to go in 2007.

Indeed, let us remember that nearly 4,000 Americans have died, and almost 30,000 have been wounded in a war that has no clear strategy and no end in sight. While the President is bringing home a token number of troops, over 160,000 remain as the war drags on into its fifth year. What are we supposed to tell them, and their families, to wait another year until a new administration and new Congress finally listen to the American people and bring this tragedy to a close?

Mr. President, Iraq appears to be no closer to legitimate political reconciliation at the national level than it was before the surge began. Equally worrisome is that, as part of the President's plan, we appear to be deepening our dependence upon former insurgents and militia-infiltrated security forces with questionable loyalties. Supporting the sheiks in al Anbar--and elsewhere--may help to reduce violence in the near term, but by supporting both sides of a civil war, we are risking greater violence down the road. Such tactics are likely to undermine the prospects for long-term stability, as they could lead to greater political fragmentation and ultimately jeopardize Iraq's territorial integrity. Again, without legitimate national reconciliation, violence may ebb and flow, but it won't end, and we will be no closer to a settlement, no matter how long we keep a significant military presence in Iraq. That is not the fault of our heroic men and women in uniform. It is the fault of the administration's disastrous policies.

There is another dirty secret behind the temporary drop in violence, and it relates to the segregation of Baghdad and the neighborhoods on its outskirts. With so many Iraqis fleeing their homes in search of greater safety and security, large-scale displacement has resulted in very different demographics. Previously mixed neighborhoods have ceased to exist, thereby curtailing one of the chief sources of sectarian violence. This ethnic cleansing is hardly evidence of a successful surge. And it sure isn't a hopeful sign for future peace and stability.

When it announced the surge, the administration said its goal was to keep a lid on violence to give time and space for reconciliation in Iraq. Now that we are no closer to reconciliation, the administration is trying, once again, to shift the goalposts. We don't hear as much about reconciliation now, and when we do, it sounds very different from the national reconciliation that was supposedly our goal--instead we hear about ``bottom-up'' reconciliation, whatever that means. All the administration can do is stall for time, just as it did in 2004, just as it did in 2005, and just as it did in 2006. The slogan may be different--``Mission Accomplished,'' ``Stay the Course,'' ``The New Way Forward'' and even ``Return on Success,'' but each time we are told we are on the right road, if we just keep walking a little longer. Until, that is, we reach another dead end, and a new slogan is invented to justify heading in a new, but equally futile direction.

As the administration blunders from one mistake to another, brave American troops are being injured and killed in Iraq; our military is being overstretched; countless billions of dollars are being spent; the American people are growing more and more frustrated and outraged; and our national security is being undermined.

Instead of focusing on Iraq, we should be focusing on our top national security priority--going after al-Qaida and its affiliates around the globe. This administration has sadly proven that we cannot do both.

Al-Qaida is waging a global campaign, from North Africa--where the Algerian Government has blamed an al-Qaida affiliate for two major bombings last week--to the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan were, while we have been distracted by Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted and strengthened itself. There is a price to pay for our neglect, and this administration has failed to acknowledge it.

Because of its narrow focus on Iraq, the administration has been so distracted it has not adequately addressed the deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan, where the resurgent Taliban--the same movement that harbored and supported the terrorist elements that attacked our country on 9/11--are gaining ground. Violence may be down in Iraq, but it is up significantly in Afghanistan. There were 77 suicide attacks in Afghanistan in just the first 6 months of 2007, which is about twice the number for the same period in 2006 and 26 times higher than from January to June 2005.

This worrisome escalation of suicide bombings is one of many signs that Afghanistan's already tenuous stability is even shakier. And while earlier this week the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. military and its NATO partners are reviewing plans for Afghanistan, it is awfully late in the game to try to put that country on a solid path to stabilization and development. Nonetheless, we have to try because we still have an opportunity to finish the job we started 6 years ago in Afghanistan-- eliminating the Taliban and destroying a safe haven for terrorist networks that seek to harm us. This opportunity is critical because until bin Laden and his reconstituted al-Qaida leadership are killed or captured, Afghanistan's future cannot be separated from our own national security.

Instead of seeing the big picture--instead of approaching Iraq in the context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless enemy--this administration persists with its tragic policy and its tragic mistakes. As the President digs in his heels, he is simultaneously deepening instability throughout the Middle East, undermining the international support and cooperation we need to defeat al-Qaida, providing al-Qaida and its allies with a rallying cry and recruiting tool, and increasing our vulnerability.

The President's promise to redeploy a few battalions, while leaving 160,000 troops in Iraq, is not nearly enough. That is why, once again, I am offering this amendment with Majority Leader Reid. It is up to us here in Congress to reverse what continues to be an intractable policy. It is our job to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to protect our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq, because the President will not.

I am not suggesting that we abandon the people of Iraq or that we ignore the political impasse there. We cannot ignore the ongoing humanitarian crisis that has unfolded within Iraq or the one that followed millions of Iraqis as they fled to Jordan and Syria. These issues require the attention and constructive engagement of U.S. policymakers, key regional players, and the international community. They require high-level, consistent, and multilateral engagement and cooperation. But Iraqi reconciliation cannot--and will not--be brought about by a massive American military engagement.

By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally bring our troops out of Iraq and focus on what should be our top national security priority-- waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their right. But I hope none of them will suggest that Feingold-Reid would hurt the troops by denying them equipment or support. There is no truth to that argument--none. Passing this legislation would result in our troops being safely redeployed within 9 months. At that point, with the troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would end, with the narrow exceptions I mentioned earlier. That is what Congress did in 1993, when it voted overwhelmingly to bring our military mission in Somalia to an end. That is what Congress must do again to terminate the President's unending mission in Iraq.

This amendment is almost identical to the version I offered with Senator Reid and others to the Defense Department authorization bill. And once again, we have specified that nothing in this amendment will prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they need ``to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.'' I hope we won't be hearing any more spurious arguments about troops on the battlefield not getting the supplies they need.

This war is exhausting our country, overstretching our military, and tarnishing our credibility. Even with the recent decline in violence, the American people know the war is wrong, and they continue to call for its end. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Feingold-Reid so we can finally heed their call to action.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the pending amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin, my friend. I strongly support the amendment that will be offered by the Republican leader that would deliver vital funding for our troops in Iraq.

The underlying House-passed bill is not only irresponsive to the facts on the ground in Iraq, it is simply irresponsible. It fails to provide any funding for our troops fighting in Iraq and actually contains an explicit prohibition against the use of funds for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The authors have compiled a bill of some 1,400 pages and an even larger joint explanatory statement chock-full of unnecessary spending, but they include not a dime for our troops in Iraq. They include not a dime for our troops in Iraq.

I would like our friends and colleagues and others to consider that the bill on the floor today contains $1.6 million for animal vaccines in Greenport, NY, but not a penny for our soldiers in Iraq; $477,000 for Barley Health Food Benefits but nothing for the troops in Iraq; $846,000 for the Father's Day Rally Committee of Philadelphia but not a dime for our sons and daughters who are fighting.

We are willing to spend $244,000 for bee research in Weslaco, TX, but not a dollar for our fighting men and women in Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Anbar. It is a sad day--it is a sad day, indeed--when in the middle of a war this country must win, the Congress provides more funds for bee research than for the brave Americans risking their lives on our behalf.

For Congress to fail to provide the funds needed by our soldiers in the field is inexcusable under any circumstances, but it is especially disappointing right now at the very moment when General David Petraeus and his troops are achieving the kind of progress in Iraq that many dismissed as impossible a few months ago, including suspending disbelief in order to believe the surge was working. One has to suspend disbelief to believe it is not.

The bill's proponents seek, I suppose, a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground or the views of our commanders in the field. If that sounds familiar, it should. It should sound familiar, my friends. The majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40 legislative attempts to achieve this misguided outcome.

The choice today is simple: Do we build upon the clear successes of our current strategy and give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the support they require to complete their mission or do we ignore the realities and legislate a premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the terrible consequences that will ensue?

In case my colleagues missed it, a couple nights ago, there was a piece on the evening news of one of the major networks that pointed out that for the first time in a long time there was 24 hours in Baghdad without a single incident of violence. How you can ignore these facts on the ground is something I do not--will not--comprehend.

I had the privilege, along with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Graham of South Carolina, of spending Thanksgiving with our troops in Iraq. On that trip, I saw and heard firsthand about the remarkable transformation these brave men and women in uniform have brought about this year. After nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military, in cooperation with the Iraqi security forces, has made significant gains under the new American counterinsurgency strategy, the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since the first year of the invasion. LTG Ray Odierno, the second in command in Iraq, said this week this improvement is due to the increase in American troops and better trained Iraqi forces--due to the increase in American troops and better trained Iraqi forces.

Now, you can believe LTG Ray Odierno or you can believe those on the other side of the aisle who want to bring to a halt the success we have achieved.

Improvised explosive device blasts, the foremost source of U.S. combat deaths, now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004. This week, MG Joseph Fil, the commander for Baghdad, stated that attacks in Baghdad have fallen nearly 80 percent since November 2006, murders in Baghdad Province are down by some 90 percent over the same period, and vehicle-

borne bombs have dropped by 70 percent.

So as Ronald Reagan used to say: Facts are stubborn things. Facts are stubborn things. These are the facts--not rhetoric but facts.

Major General Fil added that, today, there is no longer any part of Baghdad under al-Qaida control, though the terrorist group is ``still lurking in the shadows.'' I agree. They are on the run, but they are not defeated. They are on the run, but they are not defeated.

Last week, the violence in Anbar Province was the lowest ever recorded. The British handed control of southern Basra to the Iraqi Government. And in Diyala, one of most dangerous regions in Iraq, al- Qaida militants tried to retake several villages around the town of Khalis, only to see U.S.-backed local volunteers drive the terrorists away. That is the success of a classic counterinsurgency strategy. Tens of thousands of volunteers have joined ``awakening councils'' that aim to combat al-Qaida, and al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has begun warning of ``traitors'' among the insurgents in Iraq.

As a result of the hard-won gains our troops have secured, General Petraeus has been able to initiate a drawdown of U.S. forces, a drawdown tied not to an artificial timetable but based on security gains in-country. This drawdown, beginning with the removal without replacement of some 5,000 American troops, has commenced following a dramatic drop in American casualty rates and enhanced security throughout the country.

Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. Al-Qaida knows who is winning in Iraq. Our soldiers know they have seized the momentum in this fight. Does the majority party understand we are succeeding under the new strategy? The proponents of this bill cannot continue forever to deny or disparage the reality of progress in Iraq or reject its connection to our new counterinsurgency strategy.

As General Odierno explained, with the new counterinsurgency operations, ``we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate portions of the population and hamper the enemy's ability to conduct coordinated attacks.'' General Odierno went on to add: ``We have experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security. . . . and I believe continued aggressive operations by both Iraqi and coalition forces are the most effective way to extend our gains and continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.'' Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake. Of course, there is no question that Iraq's national leaders must do more to promote reconciliation and improve governance and that the reduction in violence has created a window for political and economic progress that Iraqi leaders must seize, but let's not close that window. The likelihood that they make this progress would be vastly decreased--not increased--by a precipitous U.S. withdrawal. Whatever the failings of the imperfect democracy in Baghdad, they do not justify--either in terms of national interests or simple morality--abandoning it to the al-Qaida terrorists and Iranian-backed militias trying to destroy it.

None of this is to argue that Iraq has become completely safe or that violence has come down to an acceptable level or that victory lies just around the corner. On the contrary, the road ahead remains as it always has been: long and hard. Violence is still at an unacceptable level in some parts of the country. Unemployment remains high in many areas. The Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must. No one can guarantee success or be certain about its progress or its prospects. We can, however, be certain about the prospects for defeat if we fail to fund our troops.

Make no mistake; despite the progress I have outlined, there is no cause for complacency. Just as we have managed to turn failure into success in 2007, we can likewise turn success back into failure in 2008, if we are not careful. As Major General Fil recently put it, progress toward securing the city remains fragile and there is ``absolutely a risk of going too quickly'' in drawing down troops. ``An immediate pullout too quickly would be a real serious threat to the stability here in Baghdad,'' he said. Al-Qaida is off balance, but they will come back swinging at us if we give them the chance.

Imagine for a moment if 1 of those 40 attempts to force a withdrawal from Iraq had been successful earlier this year. Rather than hearing from our commanders and troops in the field about the enormous progress, the decline in violence, the Iraqis seeking to return home, the decrease in al-Qaida influence, we would hear instead a very different story--a darker one--with terrible implications for the people of Iraq, the wider Middle East, and the security of the United States of America.

Some of my colleagues would like to believe that should the bill we are currently considering become law, without funding our troops in Iraq, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we will be back. If we leave, we will be back in Iraq and elsewhere in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Now is not the time for us to lose our resolve.

That is why the Senate must adopt the McConnell amendment. The funding contained in this amendment is not as some have characterized it: ``The President's money.'' It is money for the troops. It is money for the brave Americans who are in harm's way as we speak. This funding is to provide them with the equipment and proper training they require to fulfill their mission; funding to protect our men and women from roadside bombs and other attacks; funding to enable them to bring this war to a successful and honorable end. If the funding is not included, the President will very rightly veto this omnibus measure.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I understand the frustration many feel after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. I share their frustration and sorrow. But we must remember to whom we owe our allegiance--not to short-term political gain but to the security of America, to those brave men and women who risk all to ensure it, and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. That responsibility is our dearest privilege, and to be judged by history to have discharged it honorably will in the end matter so much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral advantage, or office. Let us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our service men and women have made by engaging in a game of political brinkmanship. There is far, far too much at stake.

I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment and to reject this amendment. I urge my colleagues to fund our troops and to support them so that when they do return to us, they return with the honor and success their valiant efforts have earned. They and the American people whom they are entrusted to protect deserve nothing less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a short time we will move to vote on three amendments to the Omnibus appropriations bill.

Each of them takes a different approach to funding the war in Iraq.

I will vote for the Feingold/Reid amendment, which I have cosponsored and voted for several times this year.

Feingold/Reid is the right approach to begin to responsibly end the war, and I will vote for it again today.

The second amendment is Levin/Reed, which I will also vote for.

Finally, we will vote on the McConnell amendment, which I will strongly vote against. This amendment simply does more of what congressional Republicans have done since the war began:

It rubberstamps President Bush's reckless management of the war that has cost us so dearly in lives, limbs, and treasure.

The debate over supplemental war funding is nothing new.

Every year, President Bush comes to us demanding more and more funds for Iraq, with absolutely no accountability. This year, he requested a staggering $200 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

At a time when he and his allies in Congress are telling us we can't invest in medical research, education, infrastructure, or public safety, they want billions and billions more for Iraq.

How will our country pay the bill for the Iraq war? A Cost that when all is done will likely exceed $2 trillion?

The President has no idea. He has no plan or intention to pay the bill. He is simply sticking it in a drawer like an overdue credit card statement, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pay for generations to come.

That is not just fiscal irresponsibility, it is fiscal madness. But it is par for the course for a President who inherited record budget surpluses from President Clinton and turned them into record deficits.

Every year, this war gets more expensive, and the American people deserve to know why.

The answer is waste. The answer is fraud. The answer is mismanagement. The answer is incompetence.

On President Bush's watch, the companies he chooses to do business with--like Halliburton and Blackwater--have wasted billions and billions of our tax dollars.

The President has allowed billions to be spent on buildings that were never built, projects that were never seen through, and contractor military operations that did far more harm than good.

That is why he asks for more every year--because he has grossly misspent the funds he has received.

This year, we have already passed a $460 billion Defense budget--and this bill includes another $31 billion for Afghanistan and troop protection.

Democrats have fully funded the needs of our men and women in uniform and given the President more than enough to conduct the war and begin to bring our troops home.

But one thing we can't control is his reckless financial mismanagement.

We have held hearings and brought cases of waste and fraud to the light of day.

But ultimately, the inability to conduct the war with the billions already allocated is no one's fault but his.

The President and his allies here in Congress will doubtlessly push the panic button and say that if we don't approve the funds immediately, our troops will suffer.

This argument is untruthful and beyond the pale.

Our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates--a man for whom I have great respect--told Congress that the Army has enough money to get through the end of February and the Marines have enough funds to get through mid-March.

If President Bush hadn't wasted untold billions, our troops would be funded for far longer than that.

If the President had followed the wishes of the American people by spending the funds we gave him to wind down the war instead of ramp it up, the existing funds would be more than sufficient.

But he didn't. He ignored the calls of the American people to responsibly end the war. And he should accept the consequences of his mistakes by finally changing course.

But let me be clear: Democrats will never let our troops suffer for the President's misdeeds.

Democrats always have and always will support our courageous men and women in uniform who have given so much and received so little in return.

It is Democrats who insisted upon a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay increase for everyone in uniform, which the President opposed.

It is Democrats who made right the awful conditions at Walter Reed and other veterans' health care facilities that took place on this President's watch.

It is Democrats who provided a $3.5 billion increase for veterans' health care after Republicans underfunded it for years.

It is Democrats who passed the Wounded Warriors Act to honor our servicemembers and their families.

I think we have heard enough of the tired old Bush-Republican scare tactics that Democrats are putting our troops at risk.

The facts speak for themselves.

We have always stood with our men and women in uniform. We always will.

But unlike Republicans, we believe that truly supporting our troops means beginning to bring them home to the hero's welcome they have so bravely earned.

My fellow Democrats and I come to the Senate floor more times than I can count to discuss the horrible cost of the Iraq war on our troops, our national security, and our reputation in the world.

We have lost nearly 4,000 young Americans. Tens of thousands more have been gravely wounded.

As I have said already, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent--tens of billions have been recklessly wasted--and the total price will climb into the trillions before all is said and done.

Our military has been stretched paper thin. Colin Powell has said our Armed Forces are ``about broken.''

Every single one of our available combat units is deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan, leaving no strategic reserves for other conflicts.

And as the situation in Iran, the faltering of democracy in Pakistan, and the escalating violence in Afghanistan show, the world can evolve literally overnight.

We must have the flexibility to respond, but right now we do not.

Our troops are being forced into repeated deployments, and the length of those deployments has gotten longer.

Military families are deeply strained, military mental health is suffering, and the Armed Forces are reporting problems with both recruitment and retention.

Just this week, General Casey acknowledged this problem, saying--``We are running the all-volunteer force at a pace that is not sustainable.''

Our National Guard is hamstrung in its efforts to keep us safe at home, because much of their equipment has been shipped to Iraq. Every natural disaster, from fire to flood, reminds us of this growing crisis.

Yet for all the cost and all the courage of our troops, this war has made us no safer.

Let me remind my colleagues of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which found that al-Qaida has regrouped and is now directing operations from Pakistan, stronger than ever.

Bin Laden remains free, taunting and threatening us with new videos.

Afghanistan--once viewed as a great military success--has spiraled out of control.

The opium trade there is at an all-time high, violence is at its highest level since American intervention, and recent reports indicate that the Taliban has vastly stepped up its efforts.

It is no wonder that this week has brought new reports that a panicked Bush administration is conducting a top-to-bottom review to stave off all-out chaos in Afghanistan and the backslide of all past gains.

I welcome this review. But as long as more than 160,000 troops remain caught in the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war, our ability to address conditions in Afghanistan--and elsewhere--will be constrained.

The American people are rightly frustrated that more has not been done to responsibly end the Iraqi war.

I share that frustration.

But within the confines of a stubborn, obstinate President and a Republican Congress that knows no other way but to carry his water, Democrats have made a difference--and a majority of Senators have consistently voted with us.

Before Democrats controlled the Congress, the Bush White House conducted the war with total impunity.

No dissent was tolerated. The patriotism of those who raised questions was openly attacked.

This year, Democrats have brought the President's recklessness into the harsh light of day.

We forced the President to set benchmarks for legislative and political progress and required regular reports on whether those benchmarks were being met.

These reports have shown that the surge has failed to reach the objective set forth by the President of political reconciliation.

We forced General Petraeus to testify--and he has said repeatedly that the war cannot be won militarily and must be won politically.

We brought to light the Blackwater controversy and forced Eric Prince to testify.

And we put an end to the duplicitous Republican practice of claiming to support the troops but failing to protect them in the field or provide for them back home.

Do I feel that enough has been done? Of course not.

Time after time, the Republican minority has had a choice: stand with the President or stand with the American people.

Each and every time, they have chosen the President.

I urge my colleagues to reject the McConnell amendment. The time for zero accountability is long past.

I urge my colleagues to embrace the amendments offered by Senator Feingold and Senator Levin.

Let's send our troops and all Americans a holiday gift: a message that the United States Congress is ready to bring this war, now nearly 5 years long, to its responsible end.

Mr. President, we have just a few matters left. We have a vote on AMT. This is a vote we have had before. Senator Baucus, the Finance chair, will talk about it when we get to it in a few minutes. It is an issue on which I agree with the House. I think we should have paid for it. We have had this vote several times before--at least once before. We have tried different ways of getting the matter before the Senate.

We have an agreement in the order entered earlier today that we are going to vote on whether AMT should be paid for. Senator Baucus will speak on that.

Amendment No. 3877

Mr. President, it is my understanding there is a motion to concur at the desk.

Mr. President, we have a vote on this, and we have a vote on whether we will concur with the House on a matter that we have changed and sent back to them. Then I am going to speak with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Under the order entered several days ago, we have a judge who is on the calendar. I will talk with the distinguished manager of this bill and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to find out if we are going to have a recorded vote.

My point is that people should not run off after the second vote. There may be three votes tonight.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Reid, Senator Voinovich, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Smith, and Senator Salazar, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, our amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that we should have a goal for the removal of most of our forces in a reasonable time mainly as a way of telling the Iraqi leaders they must accept responsibility for their own future. Our amendment expresses the sense of the Congress. It is not legally binding, but it puts us on record, and it sends a message. It says it is the sense of the Congress that:

The United States Armed Forces in Iraq should transition to

the more limited set of missions laid out by President Bush

in his September 13, 2007, address to the Nation--

counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and

supporting Iraqi forces--

And we add--

in addition to the necessary mission of force protection,

with the goal of completing that transition by the end of

2008.

The primary aim of this amendment is to keep the pressure on the Iraqi politicians to do what only they can do: Work out compromises, as they promised to do long ago--to compromise the differences which divide them so as to ensure the currently relatively calm situation in many parts of Iraq, including Baghdad, remains calm. Our sense of Congress language is aimed at pressuring the Iraqi politicians to seize the window of opportunity, as General Odierno put it, to avoid a return to the violence that characterized the presurge period.

The New York Times, in a story on December 5, quoted Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Chalabi as saying about the present situation in Iraq: ``It is more a cease-fire than a peace.'' Well, we need to make it clear to those Iraqi political leaders that a cease-fire is not good enough. They must take the steps to turn that cease-fire into a real peace.

From all accounts, the surge has already produced some military progress. The problem is that while the surge has, up to this point, achieved some military progress, it has not accomplished its primary purpose, as announced by President Bush last January. President Bush said the surge's purpose was to give the Iraqi Government ``the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas'' and that ``reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.''

The President also said ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks that it has announced.'' Well, the administration has not done what it said it would do--hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks that it, the Iraqi Government, has announced. Those legislative benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review committee, and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 1\1/2\ years ago, which were to have been completed by January of 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided.

Despite the breathing space the brave men and women wearing our uniform have provided the Iraqi leaders, despite the breathing room and the breathing space which young men and women putting their lives in harm's way on behalf of this Nation to give the Iraqis an opportunity to create a nation, they have not used that breathing space. And as a matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today than they were at the start of the surge.

The Iraqi political leadership's response to the breathing space provided by the surge has been stunning inaction. The Iraqi Parliament has suspended its session until the New Year, thus ensuring that not 1--not 1--of the 18 legislative benchmarks that they committed to meet will be met this year. The President's statement that he will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced is hollow rhetoric. To date, there have been no consequences for Iraqis' failures to meet those benchmarks.

Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of this window of opportunity is, of course, their decision. The United States cannot make that decision for them. They are a sovereign country and have to decide what is best for themselves. But whether the United States keeps an open-ended commitment or establishes a goal for redeployment of most of our forces is our decision. That is not the Iraqis' decision. They can decide whether to live up to the commitments they made to themselves and to us--solemn commitments, as far as I am concerned, because it involves the lives of American troops. Those solemn commitments have not been kept. We cannot force them to keep them, but we can decide whether we are going to maintain an open-ended commitment of our troops.

Mr. President, how much time do we have?

I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

According to our own State Department, the key threat to our effort in Iraq is the failure of the Iraqi political leaders to reach a political settlement. Listen to what the State Department said in its own weekly status report of November 21, 2007. This is our State Department:

Senior military commanders [U.S. commanders] now portray

the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as

the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-

Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed

militias.

Let me read that once again. This is our State Department saying what is the key threat to our forces in Iraq. What they are saying is that it is not the Iranian-backed militias, it is not the Sunni insurgents, it is not the al-Qaida terrorists; the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, according to our State Department, is ``the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government.''

We have to break that intransigence. How can Congress do it? How do we put pressure on the Iraqi political leaders? At a minimum, by at least expressing our view that U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more supporting and a less direct role, with a goal--a goal, just a goal--of completing that transition by the end of 2008. The message the Iraqi political leaders need to hear is that Congress has lost patience with them, as have the American people. By their own Prime Minister's acknowledgment, a political solution is the only way to end the conflict, and ending the conflict is in their own hands.

I wish we could legislate a legally binding way forward for U.S. forces in Iraq. We have tried to do that. We have not been able to break the filibuster, to get to 60 votes. But at least expressing the sense of the Congress on this matter is better than silence because silence implies acquiescence in the open-endedness of our presence. It is that open-ended commitment which takes the pressure off the Iraqi political leaders, and Congress needs to act to correct that. Our amendment is a small but important step in that direction.

Fine. That is fine with us. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, and we will come back to you.

That is correct.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

Before I yield to the Senator from California, let me respond briefly to my friend from Virginia. There is no inconsistency between voting to adopt a sense-of-the-Senate resolution expressing as a goal, nonbinding, that we complete a transition to a more limited mission, a mission which the President says he wants to transition to by the end of next year and at the same time voting for the McConnell amendment. There will be many Senators voting for the Levin-Reed amendment who are also going to vote for the McConnell amendment. There is no inconsistency whatsoever between sending our troops the funding which has been requested and having a goal for the transition of their mission to something which gets them out of the middle of a civil war. That is the one point I wish to make immediately to my good friend from Virginia.

I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.

The message is not conflicting at all. There is no conflict between saying we are going to support our troops, we are not going to reduce funding for them, and at the same time have a goal a year hence for when they transition to the more limited mission. There is not the slightest inconsistency. It is not a conflicting message. If we are interested in success in Iraq, there is only one way to achieve it--for the Iraqi politicians to reach agreement on their differences which have continued the conflict. That is not just me saying it. That is our military leaders.

I wish to read this quote because I am not sure people have focused on it. This is our State Department. I ask my colleagues to listen to this very brief quote from our State Department:

Senior military commanders portray the intransigence of

Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the key threat facing

the U.S. effort in Iraq rather than al-Qaida terrorists,

Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias.

Is that a conflicting message from our State Department, when they identify the political leaders of Iraq as being the major threat to our success? They are the major threat to our success. We all know it. Our military leaders have said it is the failure of the political leaders of Iraq to work out their differences, which is the key problem that keeps the battle going on between Iraqis. That is our State Department. Is that a conflicting message? I don't think so.

It is the truth. Most of us recognize it. We are all completely unhappy with the Iraqi political leaders. Most of us, when we go to Iraq, tell them that. The President of the United States has even said it is useful for that message to be delivered. Let us deliver it tonight.

I intend to yield back all that time but 30 seconds. I cannot believe the President of the United States is going to veto a bill providing this additional funding for the troops because the Senate, in a nonbinding resolution, expresses its belief that we ought to have a nonbinding timetable for the reduction of our troops by the end of the year. If the President has said that, I have not seen it. I can't believe he would so try to squelch the Senate from expressing a nonbinding opinion.

I yield back the remainder of my time.