Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am entering this statement in the Record because I am attending my daughter's graduation baccalaureate service in New York. Had I been here I would have voted in favor of the supplemental appropriations bill because I believe we must fund the troops who are in harm's way. However, I believe just as strongly that we must change our mission in Iraq away from policing a civil war and toward a much more narrowly focused goal of counterterrorism, which requires a much smaller number of troops. That is what the Feingold- Reid amendment stood for and that is why I voted for it on May 16, 2007. Unfortunately, it did not have enough votes to pass. Our effort to force the President to change the mission in Iraq will continue almost immediately with the DOD authorization bill and will not end until we succeed.

Mr. President, I enter this statement in the Record in support of the Dorgan-Boxer amendment to strike the temporary worker program from S. 1348. While we certainly should fill jobs for which there is a shortage of American workers, it should be done on specific needs and based on traditional visas. I believe that the introduction of a large stream of low-skilled foreign workers would have a negative impact on the wages of American workers. Finally, I fear that the inherent flaws in this proposed system will, in time, recreate the very same undocumented worker crisis this bill seeks to eliminate. A graduation event for my daughter requires me to be away from Washington, D. C. on the afternoon of May 22, 2007, and regrettably prevents me from officially registering my support of the Dorgan-Boxer amendment.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and Raskolnikof as well, since he made the grand bargain once before. It didn't work out so well, so I would say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I hope his grand bargain works out better than Raskolnikof's grand bargain.

Anyway, I rise to speak on our nominee, the confirmation of Debra Livingston. She is a legal superstar from my home State of New York, and she is nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Let me just say we in New York have a system in place for nominating Federal judges that works. The President and I work together to name highly qualified consensus candidates to the Federal bench. There is often rancor when it comes to judges from other parts of the country, but there has been very little when it comes to New York. It shows that when both sides wish to compromise, we can probably get there. That is because in New York we have an effective and bipartisan way to select qualified and, almost without exception, moderate candidates for the bench.

Ms. Livingston is squarely in that mold. Her career so far has spanned private practice, criminal prosecution, and academia, so she has a deep understanding of the law gained from many perspectives, from the courtroom to the classroom. Ms. Livingston is a graduate of Princeton University, received her J.D. from Harvard Law School--also my alma mater--where she served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

From 1986 to 1991, Ms. Livingston was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District, where she prosecuted public corruption cases and served as deputy chief of appeals. Before and after her time as a prosecutor, Ms. Livingston was an associate at one of the very prestigious law firms in New York, Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton, and Garrison. She is currently the vice dean and Paul J. Kellner professor of law at Columbia University, where she focuses on criminal procedure, evidence, and national security.

I think it is great that we will have an appellate judge who has both a scholarly mind and practical courtroom experience. It is a perfect combination, in my view, for an appeals court judge. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for her confirmation.

In keeping with the prelude to the grand bargain, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week we in Congress are continuing to work toward a solution in Iraq that both supports our troops and changes our mission away from policing a civil war to more narrowly focusing on what should be our first and foremost goal--fighting terrorism, counterterrorism, to make sure al-Qaida cannot set up a camp and strike at us.

I rise today because we are beginning. We have said all along that this is going to be a long battle. Because we do not have 61 votes in the Senate, because the President has the veto power and we certainly do not have 68 votes to override a veto in the Senate, we are going to have to continue to bring up resolution and amendment after resolution and amendment until we persuade our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do what the American people want, to do what the American people asked for in November of 2006; that is, dramatically change the course in Iraq, the mission--greatly reduce the number of troops so we can keep some troops there who can fight terrorism, but that will be many fewer. Most will be out of harm's way.

We are getting good signs. First, 6 months ago President Bush said he wouldn't accept any benchmarks or any limitation. Now the word from the White House seems to be that they will accept some types of benchmarks or other types of language that would not just be a simple funding the troops without our other goal, changing the mission. But second and more significant, what I and my colleague from Washington--and I believe my colleague from Illinois will be speaking about--are seeing is our Republican colleagues begin to set their own timetables, their own deadlines. This weekend, House minority leader John Boehner signaled that, as this debate wears on, the President will continue to lose support among the members of his own party.

By the time we get to September or October, members are

going to want to know how well this is working and, if it

isn't, what is plan B?

That sure seems similar to what we are trying to do, although we want to do it now.

Mr. Boehner's comments are echoed by a number of other Republicans who are hearing back in their States and districts that we must change the mission in Iraq. There are many comments.

Trent Lott:

I do think this fall we have to see some significant

changes on the ground in Baghdad and other surrounding areas.

There are many more. One of those is Jim Walsh, from my home State of New York. Today, the New York Times reports that Mr. Walsh is replying to his constituents that he could soon be prepared to reassess our policy and begin withdrawing our troops.

Republican Congressman Ray LaHood is indicating he expects Republican members will grow increasingly ``nervous'' about the President's strategy.

Asked about the President's demand for a funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, and no reports, says Senator Collins, who just spoke here:

Many of us on both sides of the aisle don't see that as

viable.

We are going to try to come up with a very strong resolution that both supports our troops and changes the mission. But we know we are making progress because our Republican colleagues themselves have been setting timetables, benchmarks, and other types of goals--limitations that are not terribly dissimilar from ours.

We will continue this battle, this struggle to require the President to change course in Iraq. We eagerly await our Republican colleagues joining us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Lott and Conrad, introduce the Medicare Ambulance Payment Extension Act. Without this legislation, ambulance service providers stand to lose $306 million in Medicare reimbursement in 2008 and 2009 in addition to the nearly $150 million they will lose this year. Our legislation will restore $341 million in Medicare reimbursement with a 5 percent increase in payments for 2008 and 2009.

Ambulance services are a vital component of the health care and emergency response systems of our Nation. Unfortunately, ambulance services providers are being significantly under-funded in providing their critical services to Medicare patients. We need to ensure that our ambulance service providers have the financial resources necessary to provide all Americans with high quality, life-saving services.

Fortunately, in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, MMA, Congress implemented several provisions to provide temporary relief to help struggling ambulance service providers. The MMA ambulance provisions provided short-term relief through 1 percent urban and 2 percent rural increases, a mileage rate increase for long trips, a payment boost for ambulance transports in extremely rural areas, and a regional adjustment that helped a majority of providers depending on their state. While the rural payment boost and long trip increase are temporarily still intact, the 1 percent urban and 2 percent rural increases expired at the end of last year and the regional adjustment has dropped from 80 percent to only 20 percent of payments. If Congress does not act, ambulance service providers will lose over $450 million in relief from 2007 through 2009.

Ambulance service providers cannot afford to face decreased reimbursement in the coming years. Ambulances services respond to not only 911 calls and nonemergency requests but also as first responders to natural disasters and acts of terrorism. Medicare patients account for approximately 45 percent of the call volume of an ambulance operation. Ambulance service providers cannot afford to have half of their transports reimbursed at below the cost of providing services.

While all health care providers face reimbursement challenges, ambulance service providers are required by law to respond to a plea for emergency medical care, regardless of whether the provider will recoup the full, if any, cost of the service. This additional responsibility along with the requirement that ambulance service providers accept the Medicare ambulance fee schedule rate as payment in full has further deteriorated the financial stability of ambulance operations. With increased focus on ensuring that our first responders are prepared in the event of a terrorist attack or national disaster, we should be bolstering, not deteriorating, this health care safety net.

The Medicare Ambulance Payment Extension Act will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to critical ambulance services. We urge our colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its passage this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Lott and Conrad, introduce the Medicare Ambulance Payment Extension Act. Without this legislation, ambulance service providers stand to lose $306 million in Medicare reimbursement in 2008 and 2009 in addition to the nearly $150 million they will lose this year. Our legislation will restore $341 million in Medicare reimbursement with a 5 percent increase in payments for 2008 and 2009.

Ambulance services are a vital component of the health care and emergency response systems of our Nation. Unfortunately, ambulance services providers are being significantly under-funded in providing their critical services to Medicare patients. We need to ensure that our ambulance service providers have the financial resources necessary to provide all Americans with high quality, life-saving services.

Fortunately, in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, MMA, Congress implemented several provisions to provide temporary relief to help struggling ambulance service providers. The MMA ambulance provisions provided short-term relief through 1 percent urban and 2 percent rural increases, a mileage rate increase for long trips, a payment boost for ambulance transports in extremely rural areas, and a regional adjustment that helped a majority of providers depending on their state. While the rural payment boost and long trip increase are temporarily still intact, the 1 percent urban and 2 percent rural increases expired at the end of last year and the regional adjustment has dropped from 80 percent to only 20 percent of payments. If Congress does not act, ambulance service providers will lose over $450 million in relief from 2007 through 2009.

Ambulance service providers cannot afford to face decreased reimbursement in the coming years. Ambulances services respond to not only 911 calls and nonemergency requests but also as first responders to natural disasters and acts of terrorism. Medicare patients account for approximately 45 percent of the call volume of an ambulance operation. Ambulance service providers cannot afford to have half of their transports reimbursed at below the cost of providing services.

While all health care providers face reimbursement challenges, ambulance service providers are required by law to respond to a plea for emergency medical care, regardless of whether the provider will recoup the full, if any, cost of the service. This additional responsibility along with the requirement that ambulance service providers accept the Medicare ambulance fee schedule rate as payment in full has further deteriorated the financial stability of ambulance operations. With increased focus on ensuring that our first responders are prepared in the event of a terrorist attack or national disaster, we should be bolstering, not deteriorating, this health care safety net.

The Medicare Ambulance Payment Extension Act will ensure that patients across America will continue to have access to critical ambulance services. We urge our colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to its passage this year.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues from Utah, New York, Massachusetts, and Wyoming on biologics. I thank every one of them for their cooperation and help as we move forward.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to speak about biologic drugs, a large and growing sector of the drug market. Biologic drugs can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year for a single patient, and treat devastating diseases such as cancer and its complications. There is currently no clear pathway for lower cost competitors to biologic drugs to enter the market, as there is for generic versions of traditional chemical drugs. I have introduced a bill to create such a pathway. I am glad to see my friends Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Hatch on the floor to discuss this issue with us. I yield to my colleague from Utah.

I say to Chairman Kennedy, the junior Senator from New York and I stand ready to offer a bipartisan amendment to this bill that would establish a pathway for follow-on biologic drugs. We would prefer to work with you, and with the distinguished Senators from Wyoming and Utah. To that end, we would like to work together to discuss a pathway that protects patient safety, enables consumer access to more affordable biologic drugs, and provides appropriate incentives for continued innovation of lifesaving drugs.

I thank my colleagues for these commitments. I look forward to working together with Chairman Kennedy, Senator Enzi, Senator Clinton, and Senator Hatch to develop workable legislative language that can be scheduled for a June 13 markup in the HELP Committee and included in the FDA Revitalization Act conference report.

Amendment No. 1025

With that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and send my amendment, a sense of the Senate, to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be adopted.

I add my thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the HELP Committee for all of their help and constructive resolution of this. It allows us to pass a very important FDA bill and at the same time move on the biologics.

I join my colleague from Massachusetts in congratulating my friend from Utah on his honorary degree. He will get a doctorate, I imagine, and perhaps after he will not only get an honorary degree and be a doctor but maybe he can even create a few biologics after we pass the law.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Senate has been scheduled to recess at 12:30. First, I thank the Presiding Officer for waiting for me here. As always he is gracious and kind.

I now ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and that following my statement, the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise today to join so many of my colleagues, so many of those in the military and so many of the American people in urging the President to sign the emergency spending bill that relates to Iraq when it reaches his desk. Despite what the President keeps repeating, we can do both--we can fund the troops and change our mission in Iraq. The emergency spending bill we will send to the President shortly gives our troops all the money they need and even more than the President requested, and it changes our mission in Iraq from policing a civil war to focusing on counterterrorism.

It has been 4 long years since President Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and prematurely announced ``mission accomplished'' in Iraq. Today, 4 years later, there is one thing on which the American people, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress, military experts, and the Iraq Study Group all agree: We clearly have not accomplished our mission in Iraq, and the only way to succeed is to change our current course of action.

It seems only the President and his small band of advisers think we have accomplished our mission in Iraq. Only he thinks we should stay the course. Only President Bush seems to think the only way to support our troops is for the Congress to be a rubberstamp to his policies. That is not what the American people want, and that is not what America is about. The American people want a change in mission. They want a new direction, not more of the same failed policies. That is why, if the President really supports our brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, he will sign the legislation that we will send to him very soon.

The bill provides reasonable and meaningful guidelines to protect our troops by ensuring that all units that are sent overseas to fight are ready, trained, and equipped to fight. It will require the Department of Defense to adhere to its own guidelines to ensure that every unit that is deployed is ``fully mission capable'' for the task at hand.

Why would the President want to send our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, into fierce battles against the Taliban and the Sunni insurgency without the training and equipment needed to get the job done and to come home safely? But if the President vetoes this bill, he will not be so required.

More important, this legislation shows both the United States and the Government of Iraq how to change the failing strategy in Iraq. It has been clear all along that this administration has failed to plan for the war. They gave no thought what it would take to accomplish this mission. There was no planning for the day after.

When you think about this, it is infuriating; to think that just showing strength alone would solve the whole problem. That kind of careless, narrow thinking has led us to where we are now.

This administration and its President seem to be lost in Iraq. They can only do more of the same. We put in more troops to support a government that every day gets weaker and weaker, that seems to be crumbling from both the Shiite and Sunni side. Why are we putting more troops in Iraq to defend a government that nobody seems to like and in whom nobody seems to have much faith? The escalation is not working.

As a result, our mission in Iraq has devolved so that most of what we do is patrol, police, and stand in the middle of a civil war. The Sunnis and the Shiites have hated each other for centuries. Their enmity goes way back. They will continue to hate each other, to not work with each other, to fight with each other long after we have gone, whether we stay 3 months or 3 years. Yet most of the time our troops, our brave men and women, are simply caught in the middle of a civil war, and we have not even chosen a side. We are just in the middle, and they are just in the middle--trying to defend themselves in the middle of a civil war when we don't know which side we are on, and we are unable to bring the two sides together. It is a debacle.

That is why the Congress is demanding that the President change the current mission in Iraq. As we all know, including General Petraeus, the solution to violence in Iraq is ultimately political and not military, and that is why Congress has imposed tough benchmarks on the Government of Iraq. We cannot afford to send more military troops without doing something to change this weak, almost feckless Government. Our original purpose in Iraq was to fight terrorism. I believe we must continue to fight terrorism; I know that from what happened to my city, my beloved city, and the friends I lost and think of every day.

This legislation says let's go back to that original purpose, counterterrorism, as well as force protection and training the Iraqis. Instead of policing a civil war, U.S. forces will protect U.S. facilities and citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in targeted counterterrorism missions to prevent anything that happens in Iraq from hurting us at home and continue to train and equip Iraqi security forces, although I must say that has not worked out very well thus far.

I believe these benchmarks are reasonable and achievable with renewed political will from this administration and from the Government in Iraq. The benchmarks were not just pulled out of the air. They were suggested by the bipartisan, highly qualified, highly knowledgeable, highly experienced Baker-Hamilton commission. But more important, they signify the changes in strategy that must be implemented to correct the administration's failing strategy in Iraq.

This is President Bush's war, but he has failed time and time again to make the difficult leadership decisions that are needed to protect our troops in Iraq. If he vetoes this bill, as he has threatened to do on many occasions, our brave men and women will continue to fight a brutal war with no forward-look strategy, no long-term plan, little regional support, and little chance of establishing a stable, representative government in Iraq. Every day it becomes more clear the President never had a working plan for Iraq.

So we have a mission. It is a sacred and important mission. We must change the mission in Iraq away from

policing a civil war and toward counterterrorism, which requires fewer troops and gets many more of them out of harm's way. That is what our bill does. It is what the American people want. It is what the facts on the ground demand.

I urge the President to strongly reconsider this threat to veto this legislation. If he does, he will be making a terrible mistake, one that all of us and maybe even he will come to regret. I urge the President to sign the supplemental because it gives our troops and veterans the resources they need. It honors the sacrifices of those serving in Iraq with a change in mission that is long overdue, and it is my hope that one day we will all be able to say that we have accomplished our mission in Iraq. But until we change our mission and put in place a winning strategy, that day will continue to elude us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tonight is a sad night for America, but what the President's veto indicated was not that Democrats don't want to support the troops--we do--but that he does not want a change in direction, a change in mission, a change in course. It indicates the President is still in his bunker thinking everything is going fine in Iraq, and it clearly isn't.

The bottom line is very simple: We can do two things at once. We can support the troops and at the same time we can change our mission. The bottom line is simple, and that is that the present policies have failed. Everyone except a handful of supporters of the President, and the President and the Vice President themselves, know that, but unfortunately they stubbornly cling to staying on the same course, to the detriment of about everybody else in this country and the world.

The bottom line is very simple: that President Bush, when he asked Americans to go to war, never talked about policing a civil war, and yet that is the largest part of our efforts in Iraq. We on this side of the aisle hope to change that direction so that we are fighting terrorism and directing counterterrorism and not simply policing a civil war.

The next few weeks will be momentous in our history. Frankly, when these few weeks began, the President, with his bully pulpit, his harsh rhetoric, his idea that he was trying to persuade people we didn't support the troops, many thought he would win the fight--the fight here in this Chamber and in the minds of public opinion. But that hasn't happened at all. In fact, the American people are so disgruntled by this war in Iraq, that the old name-calling, the old kneecapping, the old attempts to instill fear in people who disagreed with him don't work for this President anymore. He has only one choice. That choice is a simple one, which is to change the course of the war in Iraq. It is inevitable. It will happen. It will happen sooner or it will happen later, but it must happen because failed policies can never continue on and on and on.

They have asked us to have faith in the surge. If it won't work with 150,000 troops, it won't work with 180,000 troops, and it won't work because the Government in Iraq does not have the support of the people, is unable to accomplish any goals, is unable to bring Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds together. It doesn't matter how many troops we have there; the bottom line is simple. Our President is in the twilight days of his administration, and he has only two choices. One is to do what his predecessor Ronald Reagan did: See that things have gone off course and seek a correction. Ronald Reagan did that in 1986, and by 1988 the wall came down and Ronald Reagan had restored the faith of the American people. Why this President can't see the necessity to do the same when his policies, if anything, are in far worse shape than those of President Reagan, speaks either to an inability to sense what is going on or a stubbornness despite the facts. We can't tolerate that.

We here tonight make a pledge to the American people. We will continue this struggle to change our direction in Iraq. We will not run away from fighting terrorism. We believe it every bit as fervently as anybody else, but we will also not run away from fighting terrorism smartly, which is what we are not doing here.

So we will continue to try to reach a compromise with this President, to try to figure out a way we can both support the troops and change the course of the war in Iraq in maybe a different way, but we will not give up on our mission. The American people demand no less and we will not disappoint them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 2 p.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this Committee hearing will be to consider conservation policy recommendations for the farm bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to examine Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBRs) and Truck Driver Fatigue, and related regulations to be issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Advanced Technology Vehicles: The Road Ahead.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the nomination of Howard C. Weizmann to be Deputy Director of the Office of Personnel Management.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Process Patents for Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list: Wayne Herrington, Assistant General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, Washington, DC; John R. Thomas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; Mike Kirk, Executive Director, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Arlington, VA; and Christopher A. Cotropia, Professor of Law, Richmond School of Law, Richmond, VA.

Mr: President, I ask unanimous consent that the Seapower Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense Transportation programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years defense program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 1, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we can do both: fund the troops and change our mission in Iraq. That is what this supplemental does, and we urge you, Mr. President, to look into your heart, reconsider, and sign it.

The American people, bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress, military experts, and the Iraq Study Group all agree the only way to succeed is to change our mission. Only President Bush and his small band of advisers think we should stay the course.

What is more, the President wrongly thinks the only way to support our troops is for everyone to rubberstamp his policies. That is not what the American people want. The American people want a change in mission. They want a new direction, not more of the same failed policies.

I have talked to generals and to NCOs. They do not want us to rubberstamp the President's policies. They want a debate because everyone knows the present direction is failing. Everyone knows we need a change of mission--except the President and his small group of advisers who are clustered down there at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and refuse to listen--stubbornly refuse to listen--to the experts, to the American people, and to so many others.

First, let me tell you what this supplemental does. The first thing it does is fund our troops. It fully supports our troops. It allocates more dollars for them than the President has asked for.

Second, it provides reasonable and meaningful guidelines to protect our troops by ensuring that all units that are sent overseas to fight are ready, trained, and equipped to fight. It will require the Department of Defense to adhere to its own guidelines to ensure that every unit that is deployed is ``fully mission capable.''

Why would President Bush want to send our troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, into fierce battles, without the training and equipment needed to get the job done and come home safely? But when he says he will veto this bill, he will veto that provision.

Third, this legislation shows both the United States and Iraq how to change the failing strategy.

What has happened is simple. Our mission in Iraq has devolved so that most of what we do is patrol, police, and stand in the middle of a civil war. The Sunnis and the Shiites have hated each other for centuries. Their enmity goes way back. They will continue to not like each other, not work with each other, fight with each other long after we are gone--whether it is 3 months or 3 years. Yet most of the time our troops--our brave men and women--are simply caught in the middle of a civil war. We have not chosen a side; we are just in the middle.

The original purpose in Iraq was to fight terrorism. Our supplemental says, let's go back to that original purpose: counterterrorism, as well as force protection, and training the Iraqis. But to continue to spend most of our time, effort, and lives--lives--patrolling a civil war makes no sense.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. President, in conclusion, again, there is a simple answer to our problems in Iraq, which is mission change. We can both support the troops and change the mission. That is what the American people want. That is what the experts tell us. I believe that is what most of our soldiers want. I urge support of this supplemental and again urge the President to reconsider and sign it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to speak on a very sad occasion that occurred in my State in the last 2 days and to recognize the three heroic New York State troopers shot in an act of cold-blooded violence. Sadly, one trooper, David C. Brinkerhoff, a member of the specially trained mobile response team, has been killed. Tonight my thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and coworkers.

Trooper Brinkerhoff and Trooper Richard Mattson were shot at about

8:45 a.m. Tuesday while searching for a gunman who was suspected of shooting a third trooper, Trooper Matthew Gambosi, during a traffic stop in nearby Margaretville, NY, a beautiful town in Delaware County. Trooper Mattson is in serious condition at a local hospital and, praise God, Trooper Gambosi only suffered minor wounds as the bullet was caught by his bulletproof vest. We pray for their speedy recoveries.

Law enforcement raided the farm where the gunman was holed up yesterday, and his body was recovered late last night. Now that this man is no longer a threat, we must turn our attention to the troopers' families and friends who have been devastated by these tragic events.

New York State troopers represent the best of all of us. They are brave, selfless heroes who put their lives on the line every day with unequaled character and dignity. They are tough, and they are just. The events of the past 48 hours have devastated our entire State. Now we will mourn together. The entire trooper community and the people of the great State of New York have suffered an enormous loss. The greatest way we can honor them is to remember their sacrifice always and to pledge to rise above this tragedy by continuing to do exactly what they did when they got into harm's way on our behalf. Of course, I speak of impartial, courageous, and professional law enforcement.

Trooper Brinkerhoff was born and raised in the Southtowns area of western New York and was only 29. He was an 8\1/2\-year State police veteran and joined the mobile response team in early 2006. He is survived by his wife Barbara and a 7-month-old daughter. Brinkerhoff is the second member of the New York State mobile response unit to be killed in less than a year. Trooper Joseph Longobardo was killed by serial killer Ralph ``Bucky'' Phillips in the woods of Chautauqua County in the western end of our State. Far too often our troopers and law enforcement officers are struck down by senseless violence. However, every time their mettle is tested, they return stronger and more determined to keep New York safe.

I am also pleased that the Senate will approve later today a resolution commemorating the sacrifice of the men and women of law enforcement who have lost their lives on the job. They are all true heroes. We honor each and every one of them.

My thoughts and those of my family are with Barbara and her daughter tonight, and I send them the full condolences of the Senate and the people of the State of New York. We will not forget you or the sacrifice of Trooper Brinkerhoff.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Crapo in offering our Sense of the Senate to express that the Congress and the administration take the necessary steps to sustain the United States' position as the global leader in financial services to S. 761.

We can all agree that the U.S. is the financial capital of the world. Today, Wall Street is booming, and our Nation's short-term economic outlook is strong. But to maintain our success far into the future we must immediately address a real and growing concern: our global competitive position in the capital markets is being threatened.

The evidence is quite clear.

London, certainly our greatest competitor, has been working hard to gain on us in financial services in the last few years. And, although London has not overtaken us, it is no longer a distant second.

While New York is still the dominant global exchange center, we have been losing ground as the leader in capital formation. In 2005, only one out of the top 24 IPOs was registered in the U.S. and four were registered in London.

Sadly, the problem is not just IPOs. Our competitive position is being challenged in most businesses that are globally contestable.

Today London leads in some of the fastest growing and innovative areas in the financial services. They account for 70 percent of the global secondary bond market, 40 percent of the derivatives market, 30 percent of foreign exchange activity, and 30 percent of cross border equities trading.

Why is this happening? Not because London is more innovative--New York City is and 49 percent of the top CEOs say so. But, what they also say is--given the risks associated with developing innovative financial instruments and the importance of attracting talent in finance--the U.S.'s legal, regulatory and immigration policies are not attractive and it only makes sense to pursue cutting edge activity overseas. To make matters even worse, it is not only London. As technology has virtually eliminated barriers to the flow of capital, it now freely flows to the most efficient markets, in all corners of the globe. So, in addition to London we're increasingly competing for position against cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo and Bombay.

My concern about this issue has been keeping me awake at night. For over a year now I have been racking my brain, trying to understand the causes and fixes needed to keep us No. 1.

Well . . . that is precisely what Mayor Bloomberg and I set out to do in

a more formal way when we commissioned McKinsey Consulting to conduct a study to examine the competitive position of New York City's financial services industry, specifically in comparison to London's. The study identified the drivers that might cause New York City to lose its competitive edge, but more importantly provided recommendations and an action plan to correct the problem.

We gathered detailed analyses of market conditions here and abroad. McKinsey interviewed and consulted more than 50 respected leaders from the financial services industry, consumer and labor groups, and other stakeholders.

Our report which was released in January illustrated the reality of the situation. The U.S., New York in particular, is in grave danger of losing its status as the financial capital of the world without a major change in policy and regulation. If we continue on with the status quo, within the next ten years we will go from being number one, to becoming a marginalized regional market--spelling disaster for New York and the entire country.

Financial services comprise 8 percent of the U.S. economy--the third fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy. The industry also plays an important intermediary role in promoting economic activity and creating jobs (savings, investment, borrowing, capital formation, wealth accumulation, transactions). 1 in every 19 jobs in the U.S. is in financial services.

This clearly is not just a New York issue. Many of you will be surprised to learn, just as I was--that seven states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, North Carolina, South Dakota), including New York, have more than 10 percent of their State's GDP devoted to financial services.

Resolving this issue will require all hands on deck. In New York we already recognize that--the Mayor, the Governor, and I have already joined forces.

I strongly believe that we are in a good position to act now in order to lessen the damage that could be waiting for us 10 years down the road.

Cleary, this is an issue that will take some time to work through-- taking on our country's regulatory regime, legal system and immigration policies will be no easy undertaking. In recognizing the complexities, our report focused on near term recommendations that are mostly administrative and the longer term recommendations that are legislative.

I want to commend Secretary Paulson and the Department of Treasury for convening a conference on United States capital markets' competitiveness. I hope this will build more momentum for other financial services regulators and Congress to take action and sends a signal that we are in need of a renewed U.S. focus on competitiveness.

We deed to take action to level the playing field for both domestic and foreign companies doing business in the United States, to address more complex policy, legal, regulatory and other structural issues affecting the U.S. position as the world's leading financial center. We must create a responsive, market-oriented regulatory framework, moving closer towards a fair and predictable legal environment, and provide access to skilled professionals from outside of the U.S.

I want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Crapo for his commitment and leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with you over the next several months to protect our capital markets--this is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it's an American issue.

The bottom line is that we, in New York and in the U.S., literally cannot afford to lose our place as the global leader in financial services and we must examine which factors impede our competitive standing.

At the same time, we have to be smart, careful, and balanced as we seek to continue to redefine the exquisite balance of innovation and regulation as markets evolve internationally.

We know that addressing these challenges and ensuring that we do so in a way that continues to offer strong protections to consumers and investors will be a huge undertaking. But if all stakeholders-- industry, consumer advocates, labor, and government--come together in the name of securing our economic future, we can do it.

Failing to do so would be dereliction of duty.

We must all commit to seeking a shift in national policy in a direction that will ensure that New York and America retain its leadership position in the financial services industry well into the 21st Century.

I thank my colleagues for joining us in support of this amendment.

Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from Ohio for letting me make some brief remarks, and then I will yield the floor to him.

First, I wish to praise my colleagues from New Mexico and Tennessee, who have done an excellent job on this legislation. I applaud the bipartisan group that put together this extraordinary bill we are considering, the America COMPETES Act, because this legislation will provide invaluable resources to help slingshot our economy forward and ensure that our great country does not lose step with our global competitors.

I am particularly proud of one provision I authored and has been included in the managers' amendment that was adopted earlier today. That is what I want to speak about.

The program is called the National Science Foundation Teaching Fellowship, and it will go a long way toward ensuring that our high school students are taught math and science by the best and the brightest.

I wish to express my deep gratitude to Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Enzi, and Alexander for including this important provision in the bill. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Clinton, for her valuable support as a committee member in this process.

The NSF Teaching Fellowship is modeled after a highly successful program in New York City called Math for America. The program recruits top math and science graduates to become teachers and retains them as teachers by offering financial incentives. The program will ensure that leaders in math and science train future generations of innovators-- instead of leaving the classroom for research or other opportunities.

It is working in New York City, and it is crucial to expand this model to the rest of the country. Let me share with you some statistics that will explain why.

Our students are not currently prepared to compete in a technological economy. In the 2003 PISA math assessment that compared 15-year-old students across the world, American students ranked 24th out of the 29 participating countries--here in America, in math, 24th out of 29. How are we going to stay the greatest country in the world when that has happened?

Students currently studying math and science will be the fuel that powers our economy for the next century, and there is no question we are not giving them the tools they need to compete.

One reason why our students are not doing well is because only one- third of math teachers and less than two-thirds of science teachers majored or minored in the subject they teach. It is not hard to understand why. Starting salaries for math and science majors can be as much as $20,000 higher in the private sector than they are for public school teachers. But by allowing this disincentive to teach to continue, we are ignoring our responsibility to have our students taught by teachers who know math and science backward and forward. The bottom line is the American economic engine may stall if we don't have a highly skilled workforce to keep it going. Unfortunately, this is where we are faltering.

So today the Senate has adopted the NSF Teaching Fellowship program, along with other excellent provisions in the America COMPETES Act, to fill in the gap. Here is how the program will work. NSF teaching fellows will have to take a test to prove their strengths in math or science. Then they enroll in a 1-year master's degree program in teaching that will give them teaching certification, and it is all paid for. They will agree to teach for at least 4 years, and for those 4 years, they will receive bonuses on top of their salaries. These individuals will infuse our schools with a deep passion for and an understanding of math and science and will share their knowledge with other teachers in their school.

To retain our current teachers who are outstanding at what they do and can provide expertise in the classroom that our teaching fellows won't yet have, there is another category called NSF Master Teaching Fellows. Master fellows are existing teachers who already have a master's degree in math or science education. They will also take a test demonstrating they have a high level understanding of their subject area. For the next 5 years they will serve as leaders in their school, providing mentorship for other teachers in their department as well as assisting with curriculum development and professional development. For these 5 years they also will receive bonuses on top of their salaries.

Last year I introduced the Math and Science Teaching Corps Act with my friend Congressman Jim Saxton in the House. Today that bill has evolved into a program that has been included in the America COMPETES Act.

The question is: Will this generation have the skill sets necessary to take full advantage of this new economy? Right now our children are lagging behind and we must act quickly before businesses need to look elsewhere. Math and science skills are the key to

maintaining this country's competitiveness in the global economy, and this legislation will help ensure that.

I believe the NSF Teaching Fellowship, as well as the rest of the America COMPETES Act, will put us back on track. I am proud to have been included in the process and I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete work on this important bill.

Medicare

Mr. President, I want also to take 1 more minute to address the comments this afternoon of my friend and colleague Senator Gregg. He and I often agree, and I believe we do on this particular issue as well, about the need to shore up Medicare. I think he misunderstood my comments from yesterday and I want to take a moment to discuss them.

Yesterday the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report showing that Social Security does not face an impending funding crisis, but Medicare funds are less secure. The report indicates that the Social Security trust fund would be solvent 1 year longer than was predicted in last year's report, that is until 2041, but Medicare would be exhausted as soon as 2019 in terms of the Medicare trust fund.

The Senator should know I did not and would not attack the independent trustees of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. My statement responded to two things: first, the administration's misguided mission to use any and all news with regard to Social Security as an opportunity to push for privatizing Social Security; second, the administration's unwillingness to do something to fix underlying problems in our health care system and reduce budget deficits to shore up Medicare before it is too late.

My colleague from New Hampshire pointed out that most of us on this side of the aisle voted against some of his amendments. That doesn't mean we don't want to fix Medicare; it means we don't agree with the way he is proposing. In fact, we have to get a handle on the whole health care system to fix Medicare, not chop away and slash away at Medicare itself. So I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire, we can't leave these problems to future generations. I look forward to working with him on that important issue.

I once again thank my good colleague from Ohio for his generosity of both time and spirit.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague.

vote explanation

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