Floor Statements

Mr. President, in honor of the eighth annual International Education Week, which runs Monday, November 12 to 16, 2007, I would like to emphasize the importance of international education and exchange programs and the key role they play in strengthening our own educational system, shaping our young citizens to become successful in our interconnected world, and improving our image as Americans overseas.

In so doing, I want to share a number of stories from my constituents about how their international education and exchange experiences have changed their lives. While I do not have time to read all of their stories, I will ask to have them printed in the Record as each and every one of these stories demonstrates how critical it is that we support international education and exchange programs and initiatives.

You will see in all of my constituents' stories a common theme-- international education has opened their eyes to the fact that we are an interconnected global community and that we have responsibilities as Americans to reach out to that global community. A constituent, Claire from River Falls, WI, wrote to me that:

I was an AFS student in high school (in Brazil) and since

then firmly believe that if we could lift every 16 year old

out of their ``comfort zone'' and have them live somewhere

else in the world for a few months; we'd end war and

certainly increase global understanding.

I agree with this statement and firmly believe that if we all stepped out of our ``comfort zone,'' we would be facing a future that is more stable and secure than where we appear to be today.

International education and exchange strengthens our own educational system in a variety of ways. First and foremost, educational exchanges better prepare our children for

the workforce and competing in the global economy. Katherine from River Falls shared her experience working through a nongovernmental organization called Building Tomorrow. She wrote:

While in Uganda [with Building for Tomorrow], I was

fortunate enough to have a home-stay experience with a

Ugandan family . . . I and two other Building Tomorrow

members were paired with a doctor because we all had an

interest in some aspect of health care . . . This experience

was remarkable and contributed to my decision to pursue a

career in public health.

International education and exchange strengthens our own educational system. Teachers and students participating in exchange programs are able not only to broaden their own horizons, they also inform their peers of their experiences and thinking and, in so doing, contribute to their school systems for the lasting benefit of others. Sandra, a teacher in Sun Prairie, wrote to me that she participated in two separate Fulbright Hayes Group Projects Abroad and that, ``both Fulbright-Hayes Group Projects Abroad inspired me to develop innovative interdisciplinary curriculum units, made infinitely richer by my newly acquired photographs, video footage, cultural artifacts, interview notes, books published outside of the U.S., and personal reflections . . . As a result of ongoing internationally focused literacy programming, my middle school students, including reluctant and struggling readers, seek out books on other cultures and countries, are intrigued by world maps, and pay more attention to world news and global concerns.''

International education and exchange programs foster greater cultural understanding. Today's students are tomorrow's leaders--and the better they understand other cultures, the better prepared they will be to make informed and balanced decisions for the benefit of our Nation's and our world's security and well-being. Thanks to the disastrous policies of this administration, anti-American sentiment around the world is at alarming levels. Those policies were based, in part, on inadequate information or misinformation about the rest of the world. As a result, future American leaders are facing a world that is fraught with mistrust. Their overseas experiences today will build relationships for tomorrow. Those experiences will form their future decisions and provide them with a broader appreciation of others' views and interests.

Sarah, a senior at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, wrote to explain to me about her semester abroad program:

Traveling and studying abroad in general taught me about

American and other cultures, societies, views, and ideas,

different forms of government, a greater sense of

independence, and how to look at cultures and traditions that

are different from my own with an open mind, rather than

making judgment[s] before I know all the facts.

As U.S. citizens, many of us have privileges that countless millions of people throughout the world will never experience. International educational opportunities encourage a greater sense of social responsibility to assist those who face lives of poverty, disease, and the effects of natural disasters. Lacey, a 25 year-old graduate of UW Madison, e-mailed me upon her return from spending a summer studying in China which impacted her so much that she is returning to be a volunteer interpreter at the Beijing 2008 Olympics. She wrote:

I use my travels and the things I learn from each place to

bring back to my community with me and try to give back in

whatever way I can as much as possible.

Finally, our citizens are our best diplomats. International education and exchange programs offer them the opportunity to reach out to others to reverse negative or inaccurate images that the rest of the world has formed. Kathy from Oshkosh shared with me how her experiences changed her perceptions:

I recall with distinct clarity a conversation I had with my

host mother in Spain about the people of Islam in our

country. She was very surprised that I had friends who are

Muslim and that I respect their culture and religion. She

told me that I changed the way she views Americans . . .

Senator Feingold, I am no longer just a citizen of the United

States of America. I am a citizen of the World.

Congress has an important role to play in enabling and promoting these experiences for our constituents. I was a strong supporter of the creation of the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, an independent commission created in 2004 for the purpose of recommending a program to greatly expand the opportunity for students at institutions of higher education in the United States to study abroad, with special emphasis on studying in developing countries. One of my colleagues--Senator Durbin--has taken an important step in working to implement the commission's published recommendations by introducing the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007, S. 991. But this bill is not enough. We also need to be supporting opportunities for every American to study overseas. And if not study, then to volunteer or participate in one-on-one exchanges. Cultural misunderstanding makes our world more dangerous, and, as you have heard from the accounts I have read, it is our citizens who make the biggest, longest lasting change.

As we recognize and celebrate International Education Week, I call on all Americans to take a little time to learn something new this week about another culture, and I encourage all Americans to recognize and support international education and exchange throughout the year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have constituent stories printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I oppose the 2008 Department of Defense appropriations conference report because it provides money to continue the misguided war in Iraq but fails to require the redeployment of U.S. troops. The war in Iraq is the wrong war. It is overstretching our military and undermining our national security. It is long past time for this war to end.

Some may pretend that this conference report does not include any Iraq money. That claim is misleading, at best. This bill provides the regular DOD funding that keeps the war going. In fact, this bill will pay for a significant part of our operations in Iraq. Moreover, there is nothing in this bill to prevent the Defense Department from shifting regular funds to pay for the full costs of the war in Iraq in the event that the Congress does not enact supplemental appropriations for the war.

I strongly support our brave men and women in uniform. We do not do them any favors by giving the President money to keep this open-ended war going with no strings attached. For their sake, and for the sake of our national security, we should use our power of the purse to force the President to bring this war to a close. This bill represents another missed opportunity, and another example of Congress failing to use its power to bring our troops out of Iraq.

Mr. President, I will vote against the nomination of Judge Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. This was a difficult decision, as Judge Mukasey has many fine qualities. I was particularly impressed by his determination to depoliticize the Department of Justice. After the debacle of the last Attorney General, this is obviously a very high priority. If nothing else, over the remaining 15 months of the Bush Presidency, the Department must recover its credibility and its reputation. Never again should it be led by someone who is willing to wield its awesome power for political purposes or fill its most important positions with individuals chosen for their politics rather than their legal skills. Judge Mukasey appears to have the intelligence, the experience, and the stature to undertake this very important task.

There are other areas where I was favorably impressed by Judge Mukasey. His straightforward promise to stop the disparate treatment of gay employees at the Department of Justice was welcome and refreshing. He indicated his intention to be a much more hands-on manager of the process for seeking the federal death penalty, and when I asked him in writing if a request by a U.S. attorney to discuss a death penalty decision with Attorney General personally was a valid reason to fire that U.S. attorney, he answered simply, ``No.'' If Judge Mukasey is confirmed, I look forward to working with him to try to ensure that Federal death penalty is fairly administered.

I was also impressed that on several occasions Judge Mukasey was willing to admit in his written answers that some thing he had said or written in the past were incorrect. This administration needs more people who will admit they were wrong when that is the case. That kind of humility and honesty is often the first step toward correcting mistakes and reaching consensus.

In many respects then, Judge Mukasey is a big improvement on the previous Attorney General. At this point in our history, however, the country needs more. Simply put, after all that has taken place over the last seven years, we need an Attorney General who will tell the President that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. And on that fundamental qualification for this office, Judge Mukasey falls short.

The President's warrantless wiretapping program, instituted after 9/ 11 and carried out in secret until it was revealed in a New York Times article in December 2005, presented the Department of Justice with a historic test of its integrity and its commitment to the rule of law. Under the previous leadership, the Department failed that test. We need an Attorney General who, when faced with a similar crisis, will look the President in the eye and tell him ``No.''

When I first met with Judge Mukasey, I questioned him about the two justifications for authorizing warrantless wiretaps that the Department has put forward publicly. With respect to the argument that the authorization for use of military force, or AUMF, somehow authorized warrantless wiretaps, he said, ``I don't see that argument.'' With respect to the argument that the program was legal under the President's article II powers, he said he was ``agnostic.''

I and a number of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee returned to this question in the hearings and in written questions for the record. Unfortunately, this time the results were not reassuring. He responded to my question for the record about the largely discredited AUMF justification by

saying that ``I still have not come to a conclusion. . . . I believe there are good arguments on both sides of that issue.'' That is a statement that ought to give pause to anyone in this body.

His answers to questions concerning the article II justification indicate that he is no longer agnostic on that question, but instead he has become a believer that executive power trumps the laws written by Congress.

Both at the hearing and in writing, Judge Mukasey stated several times that the President must obey all valid and constitutional statutes, even if he is acting to defend or protect the country. He also said that ``FISA is a constitutional law'' and that ``[a]s a general matter, therefore, the President is not free to disregard or violate FISA.''

But he also stated that ``difficult separation of powers questions'' would arise, and would have to be resolved through the three-part test articulated in the Supreme Court Youngstown case, if a statute--and FISA in particular--were to constrain the President's constitutional authority. If FISA is constitutional--and Judge Mukasey says it is-- then why are these separation of powers questions so ``difficult''? Clearly, Judge Mukasey believes that a law can be constitutional on its face, but can become unconstitutional if its application constrains the constitutional authority of the President. There is no difference between this view of executive power and the theory that executive power trumps congressional power. There is no other way to interpret Judge Mukasey's statement to Senator Leahy: ``If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute, but within the authority of the president to defend the country, the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law.''

This view is simply contrary to Justice Jackson's three-part test in Youngstown. Youngstown makes clear that where the President's constitutional authority and a statute passed by Congress come into conflict, the President's powers are reduced by whatever powers Congress holds over the subject--not vice versa. Jackson states that when the President acts against the will of Congress, ``he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling Congress from acting upon the subject.'' Congress is thus free to constrain the President's constitutional powers to any degree it likes, as long as Congress is acting within its own powers in doing so; likewise, the President's actions may be upheld only if they are ``within his domain and beyond control of Congress.''

The argument that constitutional statutes can become unconstitutional ignores this second part of the inquiry--whether the limitation on the President's authority is in an area where Congress cannot legislate. It is clear that wiretapping is not within the exclusive domain of the President, as Judge Mukasey admits that FISA is a constitutional law. Moreover, the executive authority that Judge Mukasey invoked most often--the authority to protect and defend the country--is not exclusive to the President. It is an authority that Congress shares, which Judge Mukasey admitted in answers to written questions.

I have discussed this issue in some detail because extreme theories of executive power have become one of the primary, and most unfortunate, legacies of the Bush administration. Congress needs to be very clear in rejecting them, and in making respect for the rule of law a nonnegotiable qualification for the office of Attorney General of the United States.

Let me say a word about the issue of torture, which has dominated the debate on the nomination of Judge Mukasey in the past week. Last week, the White House press secretary again implied that Members of Congress who have been briefed on the CIA's interrogation program have approved it or consented to it. That is not the case. I have vigorously opposed the program, and continue to do so. The program is of highly questionable legality, it is inconsistent with our values as a nation, and it does not make our Nation any safer. In fact, I believe that it may have the effect of exposing Americans--including military and other U.S. personnel--to greater risk.

I have detailed the reasons for my strong objections to the CIA's program in classified correspondence, sent shortly after I was first briefed on it. More recently, I have stated my opposition publicly, although I am prohibited by classification rules from providing further details about my concerns in a public setting.

In any event, neither detailed legal and factual analysis, nor knowledge of the operational details of the CIA's program, is necessary to reach a judgment on whether waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding has been used by some of the most evil regimes in history. It has been considered torture in this country for over a century. If Judge Mukasey won't say the simple truth--that this barbaric practice is torture--how can we count on him to stand up to the White House on other issues?

America needs an Attorney General who stands squarely on the side of the rule of law. This is not an arid, theoretical debate. The rule of law is the very foundation of freedom and a crucial bulwark against tyranny. Congress cannot stand silent in the face of this challenge by the executive to the crucial underpinnings of our system of government.

The Nation's top law enforcement officer must be able to stand up to a chief executive who thinks he is above the law. The rule of law is too important to our country's history and to its future to compromise on that bedrock principle.

Mr. President, the Senate has spent little time in recent weeks discussing Iraq, but we cannot ignore the latest grim news from this misguided war. The Associated Press reported this week that 2007 is now the deadliest year in Iraq for U.S. troops--even though we still have almost 2 months of this year remaining. I will ask that the article be printed in the Record.

According to a recent Associated Press count at least 3,858 Americans have been killed and 28,385 Americans have been wounded in Iraq. We are fast approaching two very grim milestones--4,000 killed and 30,000 casualties. We should stop and consider the implications of these numbers. I grieve for those who are lost and wounded, and I am all the more determined that no more of our brave men and women should be killed in a war that has no end in sight and is not making our country safer.

Instead of acknowledging that these sad milestones are indications of a failed policy, the administration is once again digging it in heels. Lately, it has been talking about the recent decline in U.S. deaths as a justification for continuing its open-ended military policies in Iraq.

The American people are not fooled by these claims of success. They know all too well that the President's policies are simply buying time, and they continue to reject them. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll illustrates that a majority of Americans are still calling for a change of course in Iraq. 59 percent of Americans think we're not making significant progress in Iraq and 6 out of 10 that's 60 percent of Americans want the level of U.S. forces reduced. And yet, the President ignores the wishes of the public, offering a small, token drawdown of forces in the near future but no timeline as to when significant numbers of troops will come home.

If the goal of the surge was to provide a window for political reconciliation, as the President outlined last January, victory remains elusive. Meanwhile, Al-Qaida has reconstituted and strengthened itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region at the same time while we have been focused on fighting a war in Iraq. The President likes to say that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror instead of fixing all his attention on Iraq, he needs to address what is happening hundreds of miles to the east.

Again and again, the American people have once again voiced their opinion that this war makes no sense and that they expect us uphold our congressional responsibilities and use our power to end it. It is bad enough to have the President disregard the American people by escalating our involvement in Iraq. Despite the efforts of Democratic leaders, Congress is also ignoring the will of the American people.

And so I urge my colleagues not to allow Iraq to remain on the congressional backburner. We cannot say we've done everything possible to end the war--we cannot say we are acting on our constituents' top concern--when we are not discussing, not debating, and certainly not voting on Iraq.

We cannot afford to sideline this critical issue at a time when we are close to reaching 4,000 American men and women killed and 30,000 wounded in a misguided, never-ending war. It is a war that will continue through the waning days of this administration unless we summon our congressional power to end it. It is a war that we cannot sit back and doing nothing about. It is a war that has cost over half trillion dollars, stretched our military to the breaking point, and made us less safe. It is an unacceptable war.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Associated press to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the President of the United States is pursuing a strategy towards Iran that is badly flawed, dangerous, and likely doomed to failure. I am deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear program and its support for terrorism, and by indications that it is aiding groups in Iraq that are killing American troops, but the administration has so far failed to come up with an effective way to address these very serious matters.

For instance, less than 2 weeks ago the administration designated the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a material supporter of terrorism, and the IRGC for proliferation activities. I support sanctions that target proliferators and have introduced legislation that would strengthen our sanctions regime, but the designation of Iranian government entities raises new policy questions that do not seem to have been fully explored, and it may very well be counterproductive.

Moreover, this poorly timed action undermines efforts to win support for multilateral initiatives. Instead of acting alone, we should maintain and strengthen the international community's collective ability to counter Iranian ambitions, including with regard to its nuclear program.

Iran's actions pose serious threats to our national security. But aggressive saber-rattling is not an appropriate or effective response. The administration has shown repeatedly that it is too quick to turn to military power, and its threat, to address problems overseas. It has also shown time and again an inability to see the big picture. And it still seems to prefer unilateral over multilateral approaches. All of these are mistakes we cannot afford to have repeated.

We can't focus on Iran in isolation, the way the administration has focused for so long on Iraq without considering a broader context or taking a more comprehensive approach.

Instead of repeating the myopia of Iraq, the administration should approach the problem of Iran through a more strategic lens one that incorporates a broader and more integrated vision, that takes into account regional concerns, and that is consistent with our top national security priority, which is the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. We need a national security strategy that addresses al- Qaida, Iran, Iraq, and the many other problems we face. Instead, the administration prefers to focus on Iraq, and now Iran, as if we had the luxury of addressing these challenges in isolation.

We must vigorously oppose any efforts by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and its support to terrorist organizations that goes almost without saying. But we must curb these actions by seeing the whole board and by using more of the tools at our disposal. And that is not happening. Instead, the administration is taking an unnecessarily belligerent approach that runs the risk of increasing our vulnerability, both at home and abroad.

The United States should be working in unison with the international community, which shares our concern over Iran's nuclear program. At the same time as the new sanctions were announced, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, was meeting in Rome with Iran's negotiators to discuss Tehran's nuclear program and discussions among the EU+ 3 comprised of France, Germany and the UK plus China, Russia and U.S.--are likely to continue at the end of November following the completion of another IAEA report.

In the past, Secretary Rice and others at State have publicly supported these talks and expressed confidence in the negotiations. But the administration's hard line position is unlikely to win over Russia and China, without whom there can be little progress.

The administration should be trying to persuade our friends and allies to increase their economic pressure on Iran, ideally through the U.N. Rather than imposing unilateral sanctions, we should be pressing the EU to announce multilateral sanctions, which would have a much greater impact given that we have not traded or invested in Iran for nearly 30 years. Instead, our bellicose rhetoric and hard-line approach could be undermining our ability to gain support from--Russia, China and even from some EU countries--to implement multilateral sanctions that Iran cannot ignore.

Trying to unilaterally isolate Iran further is unlikely to curb its nuclear program. And it won't make sure that Iran does not aid the proliferation of and access to weapons in Iraq. Veiled, and not-so- veiled, threats of military action aren't likely to work either. They are, however, likely to embolden Iran's hardliners as they seek to thwart moderates in that country who might otherwise encourage dialogue or political reform.

Instead of using the Iraq focused bilateral talks that have occurred in Baghdad as a platform from which to build, we are launching ourselves on to a collision course that may further endanger U.S. troops in Iraq in the near term. And that might only be the beginning. Our massive presence in Iraq undermines our ability to deal with Iran. It is draining our resources, exhausting our troops, exposing them to potential Iranian attacks, and undermining our credibility.

We should redeploy our troops from Iraq so that we can deal with Iran from a position of greater strength. Instead, the President is leading us deeper into the quagmire that his misguided policies in Iraq created.

It is essential that those of us here in Congress condemn the violent and defiant statements coming out of Iran. But we also have a responsibility as a co-equal branch of government to respond to this administration's aggressive words, ill-considered decisions and ad hoc policies, particularly when they may undermine our own national security. Dealing with Iran is a daunting task. But we are only making it more difficult with our counterproductive policies of isolation and war-mongering. We cannot again succumb to the shortsightedness that keeps us fixated on Iraq and drains the attention and resources needed to combat threats to our national security around the world.

Mr. President, as Congress continues to work on comprehensive energy legislation, I want to discuss the importance to my constituents of enacting strong yet achievable corporate average fuel economy standards.

The final energy package needs to increase vehicle fuel economy requirements, but it should do so without undercutting hardworking families in Wisconsin and across the country. Between manufacturing, dealerships, and the automotive parts industry, there are upwards of 50,000 auto jobs in Wisconsin. Having grown up in Janesville--home to a General Motors plant--I understand how important the auto industry is to the State's economy and its communities. For far too long, under different administrations and different Congresses, the U.S. has pursued trade and other policies that have undermined our country's manufacturing base. Now, it is time to pay attention to the concerns of America's workers.

We can have strong and achievable CAFE standards. However, this will require several reasonable revisions to the Energy bill that the Senate passed. For starters, separate standards for cars and trucks need to be maintained. I recently organized a coalition of senators to write the Senate's Democratic leadership and urge it to maintain the distinction in current law between standards for cars and trucks. Passenger cars and light-duty trucks are inherently different. They should have

separate fuel economy standards. Unfortunately the Senate's CAFE language is unclear in this regard, providing little certainty on how the Department of Transportation will interpret this provision. Congress must provide the necessary certainty.

In order to ensure the Energy bill takes the right approach on CAFE standards, I have also joined colleagues in calling for a formal House- Senate conference to meet to draft the final bill. We should not abandon the normal legislative process on such an important issue and resort to informal, backroom dealmaking. I understand that there are still objections to convening a conference and I hope that those will be resolved soon.

Since the Senate considered the Energy bill, I have worked to ensure that the final version includes a CAFE standard that supports working families in Janesville and elsewhere. When the Senate considered the bill earlier this year, I supported the reasonable Pryor-Bond-Levin amendment to increase CAFE standards, and I was disappointed that it was never brought to a vote. I continue to work with them and other colleagues to make sure that Congress strikes the right balance on this important issue.

As the Congress works to finalize its comprehensive energy legislation, I urge my colleagues to help set strong yet achievable vehicle fuel economy requirements. We can increase CAFE standards while also ensuring that my hometown of Janesville--and hometowns like it across the country--still has the family-supporting jobs that are vital to the strength of the community.

National Radiation Protection Professionals Week

Madam President, I will vote to sustain President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. The President's veto of the WRDA bill is a welcome opportunity for Congress to modify the flawed, bloated bill. Instead of overriding the veto, Congress should be taking this opportunity to fix the bill.

For 7 years, I have worked with Senator McCain and many of our colleagues to achieve essential reforms of the Corps of Engineers, and have long anticipated the day that meaningful reforms are enacted. Unfortunately, during conference, the Senate's strong Corps reform provisions were significantly watered down. Instead of the reform bill that the country needs, this bill is simply the latest example of business as usual.

After a decade of Government and independent reports calling for reforming the Corps, and pointing out stunning flaws in Corps projects and project studies, and after the tragic failures of New Orleans' levees during Hurricane Katrina, the American people deserve meaningful reforms to ensure that the projects the Corps builds are safe, appropriate, environmentally responsible and fiscally sound. The urgency and necessity could not be clearer.

A critical component of reforming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is ensuring independent review of significant Corps projects. This bill provides review but does not ensure it is truly independent.

I will continue to push for Corps reforms that ensure fiscal responsibility, accountability, public safety, and environmental protections. This means ensuring that Americans' tax dollars are spent on the most important priorities, not just on Members' pet projects. Earlier this year, I was joined by Senators McCain, Coburn, Carper, Gregg, Sununu, and DeMint in offering an amendment to form a commission of non-Federal, water resources experts to provide Congress recommendations on a process for prioritizing Corps projects.

However, the Senate defeated this effort. I can only conclude that many of our colleagues think the status quo is acceptable. To me, there is nothing acceptable about a $58 billion backlog (soon to be $81 billion) of authorized but unfunded projects. Some of my colleagues have argued it is okay to authorize $23 billion in projects, because WRDA only authorizes projects and does not appropriate funds. This approach shirks our responsibility as elected officials. By authorizing WRDA projects, Congress is indicating these projects are worthy of funding and that taxpayer dollars should be committed to these projects. Unfortunately, without some way of prioritizing and with a limited annual construction budget of around $2 billion, our Nation's critical infrastructure and restoration projects--and the American people who depend on these water resources projects--will suffer.

The President did the right thing when he vetoed the WRDA bill and I am disappointed that Congress is determined to override that veto. My colleagues would be better off if they listened to people like Mark Beorkrem, a true Corps reform champion. Mark recently passed away, but his 20 years of advocacy on behalf of the Mississippi River and reforming the Corps of Engineers will have profound and lasting effects on the health and vitality of the Mississippi and rivers across the country. Most recently, Mark played a pivotal role in ensuring the inclusion of a comprehensive ecosystem restoration component in the Corps' Mississippi River lock expansion project. He also provided leadership within the national Corps Reform Network, as well as the Sierra Club, sharing his knowledge and passion for environmental protection and restoration. The Mississippi and many of our Nation's rivers and wetlands are better off thanks to Mark's tireless efforts. We should be guided by his example.

I urge my colleagues to support the President's veto of the WRDA conference report, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record newspaper editorials on this bill.

Mr. President, I am so pleased to congratulate Congregation B'nai Abraham in Beloit, WI, on their 100th anniversary. Congregation B'nai Abraham was established on November 7, 1907, and during the past 100 years it has thrived due to its outstanding leadership, a wonderful congregation, and a supportive community. I have many happy memories of my visits to this synagogue, particularly with the Beloit/Janesville BBYO.

Generations of Wisconsinites have proudly called Congregation B'nai Abraham their synagogue. Under the leadership of Rabbi Ira Youdovin, new generations will continue to flourish. Today we celebrate this outstanding achievement and the people over the last 100 years who have built this wonderful congregation. Mazel Tov on this remarkable anniversary, and I wish Congregation B'nai Abraham the best for the next 100 years.

Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Cantwell and Feinstein in introducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code the ``Percentage Depletion Allowance'' for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. Elimination of this double subsidy will produce estimated savings of at least $500 million over 5 years, based on the most recent year for which figures are available from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal. These savings will help fund the reclamation and restoration of abandoned mines through an Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, that my bill creates, and the remaining \3/4\ of savings will be returned to the Federal treasury.

Percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That is right, these allowances were initiated nearly 100 years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The

Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since.

Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration, and output. The problem, however, is that percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover many times the amount of the original investment.

There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment.

Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. The set rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent.

There is no restriction in the tax code to ensure that over time companies do not deduct more than the capital that a company has invested. Furthermore, a Percentage Deduction Allowance makes sense only so long as the deducting company actually pays for the investment for which it claims the deduction.

The result is a double subsidy for hardrock mining companies: first they can mine on public lands for free under the General Mining Law of 1872, and then they are allowed to take a deduction for capital investment that they have not made for the privilege to mine on public lands. My legislation would eliminate the use of the Percentage Depletion Allowance for mining on public lands, resulting in an estimated savings of $450 million over 5 years, while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion.

My bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $110 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Though there is no comprehensive inventory of abandoned mines, estimates put the figure at upwards of 100,000 abandoned mines on public lands.

There are currently no comprehensive federal or state programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources.

In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: the taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry.

The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the Percentage Depletion Allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion.

Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified.

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

Mr. President, today I am very pleased to be joined by Senators Cantwell and Feinstein in introducing legislation to eliminate from the Federal tax code the ``Percentage Depletion Allowance'' for hardrock minerals mined on Federal public lands. Elimination of this double subsidy will produce estimated savings of at least $500 million over 5 years, based on the most recent year for which figures are available from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Clinton administration's fiscal year 2001 budget proposal. These savings will help fund the reclamation and restoration of abandoned mines through an Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund, that my bill creates, and the remaining \3/4\ of savings will be returned to the Federal treasury.

Percentage depletion allowances were initiated by the Corporation Excise Act of 1909. That is right, these allowances were initiated nearly 100 years ago. Provisions for a depletion allowance based on the value of the mine were made under a 1912 Treasury Department regulation, but difficulty in applying this accounting principle to mineral production led to the initial codification of the mineral depletion allowance in the Tariff Act of 1913. The

Revenue Act of 1926 established percentage depletion much in its present form for oil and gas. The percentage depletion allowance was then extended to metal mines, coal, and other hardrock minerals by the Revenue Act of 1932, and has been adjusted several times since.

Percentage depletion allowances were historically placed in the tax code to reduce the effective tax rates in the mineral and extraction industries far below tax rates on other industries, providing incentives to increase investment, exploration, and output. The problem, however, is that percentage depletion also makes it possible to recover many times the amount of the original investment.

There are two methods of calculating a deduction to allow a firm to recover the costs of its capital investment: cost depletion and percentage depletion. Cost depletion allows for the recovery of the actual capital investment--the costs of discovering, purchasing, and developing a mineral reserve--over the period during which the reserve produces income. Under the cost depletion method, the total deductions cannot exceed the original capital investment.

Under percentage depletion, however, the deduction for recovery of a company's investment is a fixed percentage of ``gross income,'' namely, sales revenue from the sale of the mineral. Under this method, total deductions typically exceed the capital that the company invested. The set rates for percentage depletion are quite significant. Section 613 of the Internal Revenue Code contains depletion allowances for more than 70 metals and minerals, at rates ranging from 10 to 22 percent.

There is no restriction in the tax code to ensure that over time companies do not deduct more than the capital that a company has invested. Furthermore, a Percentage Deduction Allowance makes sense only so long as the deducting company actually pays for the investment for which it claims the deduction.

The result is a double subsidy for hardrock mining companies: first they can mine on public lands for free under the General Mining Law of 1872, and then they are allowed to take a deduction for capital investment that they have not made for the privilege to mine on public lands. My legislation would eliminate the use of the Percentage Depletion Allowance for mining on public lands, resulting in an estimated savings of $450 million over 5 years, while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion.

My bill would also create a new fund, called the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. One-fourth of the revenue raised by the bill, or approximately $110 million, would be deposited into an interest-bearing fund in the Treasury to be used to clean up abandoned hardrock mines in states that are subject to the 1872 Mining Law. Though there is no comprehensive inventory of abandoned mines, estimates put the figure at upwards of 100,000 abandoned mines on public lands.

There are currently no comprehensive federal or state programs to address the need to clean up old mine sites. Reclaiming these sites requires the enactment of a program with explicit authority to clean up abandoned mine sites and the resources to do it. My legislation is a first step toward providing the needed authority and resources.

In today's budget climate, we are faced with the question of who should bear the costs of exploration, development, and production of natural resources: the taxpayers, or the users and producers of the resource? For more than a century, the mining industry has been paying next to nothing for the privilege of extracting minerals from public lands and then abandoning its mines. Now those mines are adding to the nation's environmental and financial burdens. We face serious budget choices this fiscal year, and one of those choices is whether to continue the special tax breaks provided to the mining industry.

The measure I am introducing is straightforward. It eliminates the Percentage Depletion Allowance for hardrock minerals mined on public lands while continuing to allow companies to recover reasonable cost depletion.

Though at one time there may have been an appropriate role for a government-driven incentive for enhanced mineral production, there is now sufficient reason to adopt a more reasonable depletion allowance that is consistent with depreciation rates given to other businesses. This corporate subsidy is simply not justified.

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

Mr. President, I have come to this floor many times over the years to urge increased U.S. attention and resources to Somalia. Meanwhile, the United States and the international community at large have continued to respond sporadically and clumsily to the steady deterioration of Somalia's security, humanitarian, and political situations. In January, I said that we had only a very limited window to establish the conditions necessary for stability in Somalia and the volatile Horn of Africa region, but I fear that opportunity may soon be lost. Events over the past few days suggest that strong but inclusive leadership is needed now if Somalia is to avoid the worst descent into chaos of its tumultuous history.

This weekend saw a massive setback in Somalia's security and humanitarian situation as a fresh outbreak of fighting which aid workers describe as the worst violence in months--forced tens of thousands more Somalis from their homes in Mogadishu. Most of these people are seeking refuge in communities whose coping capacities are already at the breaking point due to the strain of providing food, water, protection, shelter, and basic services to more than 300,000 existing internally displaced persons. Some of the newly displaced have fled to areas where there is little or no access by humanitarian agencies.

Forty of these aid organizations that are operating against all odds in Somalia released a statement yesterday highlighting the dramatic deterioration of the humanitarian situation and their increasing inability to effectively respond due to security and access constraints. They are calling on the international community and all parties to the present conflict to demonstrate a commitment to protect civilians, to facilitate the delivery of aid, and to respect humanitarian space and the safety of humanitarian workers. I want to take this moment to honor the courageous individuals and their sponsoring organizations for their persistent service to the innocent civilians most affected by the ongoing instability in Somalia and to echo their appeal for concerted action to support their work and the broader objective of peace for Somalia.

Amidst this dark backdrop there is a glimmer of hope for progress. On Monday, the embattled Foreign Minister of Somalia's fragile transitional federal government, Ali Mohamed Gedi, resigned amid feverish political infighting. Since its formation 3 years ago, the TFG has suffered from a lack of public legitimacy due to its inability to effectively represent and provide security and services to the Somali people. The appointment of a new Prime Minister is likely to be the last chance for this transitional government to restore some credibility and move forward with political reconciliation. I encourage all parties to seize this opportunity for progress towards a solution to the country's deepening crisis.

In January, I warned that without concerted international and national action, Somalia could deteriorate into what it has been since the early 1990s--a haven for terrorists and warlords and a source of crippling instability in a

critical region. But as tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea rise once again, the ongoing humanitarian needs of civilians in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia reach international attention, and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan stands on extremely fragile ground, I fear that our failure to protect civilians, defeat extremists, and build conditions for stability in Somalia could result in an even more disastrous outcome with consequences that extend far beyond the porous borders of this besieged nation. We cannot afford to squander this chance for progress towards peace.

Mr. President, I strongly support the DREAM Act. This bill would give promising children, who played no part in their parents' decision to come to this country illegally, the chance to earn legal status through college attendance or military service.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that this bill constitutes amnesty. But the term ``amnesty'' implies that these children did something wrong and are being absolved of the consequences of their actions. It is difficult to imagine how these children can be blamed for actions that their parents took when the children were too young to have any say. The United States does not visit the sins of parents on their children in other contexts and should not do so here. Furthermore, to call the bill ``amnesty'' ignores the fact that these children would be required to earn their legal status through academic achievement or military service.

The children who would be granted legal status under the DREAM Act are those who have shown through their actions that they can make an important contribution to our country. At a time when our economy and our military are in need, turning these children away squanders a valuable resource. It also leaves these children in a permanent limbo, as many of them have little or no knowledge of the country from which their parents came and have known no home other than the United States.

It serves neither justice nor our national interest to deprive these children of a future and to deprive ourselves of their potential contributions. That is why I support the DREAM Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. President, last week marked the 5-year anniversary of President Bush's signing the Congressional resolution that authorized him to use military force in Iraq. That resolution has proved to be a disaster for our country, opening the door to a war that has undermined our top national security priority, the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

More than 5 years after the authorization of war, America is mired in a conflict that continues to have no end in sight. Nearly 4,000 of our soldiers have died and more than 27,000 have been wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, if not more, and at least 4.5 million have been displaced from their homes. The region is more unstable, and our credibility throughout the international community has been significantly damaged.

We have spent over a half trillion dollars and stretched our military to the breaking point. Who knows how many more billions will be spent and how many brave Americans will die while the President pursues a military solution to problems that can only be solved by a political settlement in Iraq.

At the same time, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and has developed new affiliates around the globe. Al-Qaida has been strengthened, not weakened, since we authorized military action against, and then want to war in, Iraq.

Indeed, this senseless war has made us more vulnerable, not more secure. Yet it continues endlessly with only a small token drawdown of forces expected in the coming months, and no timeline from this administration as to when more troops will come home.

The American people know this war does not make sense. They expect us to do everything in our power to end it. Now that does not mean neglecting domestic priorities, and there are plenty of those to address, but it does mean we cannot, in good conscience, simply put Iraq on the back burner. We cannot simply tell ourselves and our constituents we have done everything we could. Finding the votes to end this war is not an easy task, but for the sake of the country, we must keep trying. I, for one, am not prepared to say, in late October, with weeks to go before we adjourn for the year, that Iraq can wait until we come back in 2008. Believe me, the administration and its supporters would like nothing better than to change the subject from Iraq. Every time we insist on debates and votes on Iraq, they complain loudly that we are taking time away from the country's true priorities. But as we were reminded last November, however, ending the disastrous Iraq war is one of the American people's top priorities. It may well be their top priority, and we owe it to them to make it our top priority as well.

While the administration continues to refuse to acknowledge that we have severely strayed off course, the war drags on and on, and more brave American soldiers are being wounded or killed. But it is not only the President and his administration that is at fault; many of my colleagues here in Congress have expressed concerns about the war but refuse to take real action to end it. They have prevented Congress from acting to secure our country and restore our global leadership.

I will not stand idly by while this mistaken war continues. I will continue working to end this war and bring our troops home. I will continue looking in the days and weeks ahead for opportunities to debate and vote on ending the war, this year, and, if necessary, next as well.

My colleagues may complain, they may be inconvenienced, they may prefer to focus on other matters. But this Congress has no greater priority than making right the mistake it made more than 5 years ago when it authorized this misguided war.

I do not want to have to come to the floor again in a year to mark another anniversary of the war's authorization, and to again implore my colleagues to act. I do not want the American people to lose faith in their elected leaders for pursuing a war they rightly oppose. I do not want more American troops to be killed for a war that does not serve our national security interests.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations act. I am pleased to support this bill, which provides healthier funding levels for our labor, health, and education programs for the first time in many years. At a time of rising poverty levels, rising health care and heating costs, and classrooms in desperate need of funding, this bill helps promote programs that offer solutions to these problems.

I am pleased that the Senate adopted four amendments I worked on. One was an amendment I cosponsored that Senator Collins offered to provide much

needed additional funding to improve access to dental health in rural and underserved areas. Our amendment successfully doubled the funding for the Dental Health Improvement Act, bringing funding from $2 million to $4 million. The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act authorized a new State grant program that is designed to improve access to oral health services in rural and underserved areas. States can use these grants to fund or create programs tailored to State needs. For example, they can use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They can also use the grant funds to establish or expand community or school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental clinics. In Wisconsin, funds were used to provide children with better access to sealants. This helps prevent further and more expensive dental work later in life.

The Collins-Feingold amendment to increase funding for this important program will help fund additional State programs so that more people in our country will have access to essential oral health care. I thank Senator Collins for her work on this, and also thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their assistance in passing this.

Another adopted amendment will increase public access to automatic external defibrillators, or AEDs, in schools. In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the No. 1 killer. Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of them, emergency medical services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest.

Fortunately, AEDs are inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of advancements in AED technology, it is practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations on how to use these devices.

Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support first responders-- local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act.

The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. With every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives.

If we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to reverse a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Unfortunately, the President zeroed out the funding for the Rural AED program after the program was cut by 83 percent in fiscal year 2006 and kept at that level in fiscal year 2007. I am very disappointed that the program was eliminated in the President's budget. Our rural communities deserve better, and I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee recognized this by providing $3 million in funding for the program this year. That is double last year's funding level and, while it is still much lower than I would like, I hope the final version of this bill includes at least that much in funding.

Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived.

This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. This story helps to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives.

After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives.

The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a chance at life.

The Feingold-Collins amendment provides modest funding for this act just $200,000. This funding, while not much in the grand scheme of the Federal budget, will help jump start this valuable program. This amendment as drafted would be funded through the Rural AED line; however, I am pleased that the managers share my goal of not taking away any of the already limited Rural AED funding and are looking for additional ways to fund the ADAM Act. I am pleased that our amendment passed the Senate by unanimous consent and I urge the conferees to maintain this small but important program.

My third amendment that passed requires GAO to conduct an assessment of current State health care reforms and comment on the potential role that Congress could take in assisting States with their efforts. I offered this amendment along with Senators Graham, Bingaman, and Voinovich. There is momentum in many States to reform the broken health care system. This study would provide an overview of what is working in the States and the effect of Federal laws on State health care initiatives. In addition, the study would provide recommendations on how the Federal Government could better work with States to further efforts.

While Congress may not be able to reach consensus on how to ensure all Americans access to health services, a State-based model allows consideration of politically diverse solutions that could eventually be widely applied. Gathering data on what works at the State level will assist Congress in looking at broader reforms, which is why Senator Graham and I have introduced legislation, with the backing of the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation, to encourage and expand State efforts to extend health care coverage.

My fourth amendment directs GAO to examine the different techniques schools are using to prepare students to achieve on State standardized exams as well as meet State academic standards. Schools in Wisconsin and around the country are facing their sixth year under No Child Left Behind, NCLB, the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda, and I continue to hear grave concerns throughout Wisconsin about the Federal testing mandates contained in NCLB and the ongoing implementation problems with the law.

Wisconsin teachers and parents are concerned about many of the unintended consequences of NCLB, including the narrowing of the curriculum to focus on the subjects that are tested under NCLB--reading and math. As a consequence of more narrowed curriculums, some students are experiencing reduced class time on other important subjects including social studies, civics, geography, science, art, music, and physical education. I have also heard numerous concerns that students are being drilled in reading and math in order to boost performance on these standardized tests, which may not be the best measure of students' higher order thinking skills. Many Wisconsinites are concerned that rote drill exercises in reading and math take the joy out of learning for students and have called for a reexamination of NCLB policies to ensure that a diverse and high-quality curriculum is taught in all of our Nation's schools.

I voted against NCLB in large part because of its Federal testing mandate and the potential ramifications of the primary focus on test scores in order to determine adequate yearly progress in our schools. I also remain deeply concerned that NCLB's testing and sanctions approach has forced some

schools, particularly those in our inner cities and rural areas, to become places where students are not taught, but are drilled with workbooks and test taking strategies, while in wealthy suburban schools, these tests do not greatly impact school curriculums rich in social studies, civics, arts, music, and other important subjects.

I do not necessarily oppose the use of standardized testing in our Nation's schools. I agree that some tests are needed to ensure that our children are keeping pace and that schools, districts, and States are held accountable for closing the persistent achievement gap that continues to exist among different groups of students, including among students in Wisconsin. But the Federal one-size-fits-all testing and punishment approach that NCLB takes is not providing an equal education for all, eradicating the achievement gap that exists in our country or ensuring that each student reaches his or her full potential.

My amendment calls on GAO to examine how the use of different preparation techniques varies based on the demographic characteristics of schools, including the concentration of poverty at schools, whether schools are located in a rural, suburban, or urban environment, and whether schools have been identified for improvement under NCLB. It is my hope that Congress will receive concrete data on how the student preparation varies among different types of schools so that we can get a better sense of how NCLB is impacting our Nation's schools. The disaggregation element of this GAO study should better help us determine whether various preparation techniques, including commercial test preparation programs and narrowing of the curriculum, are correlated with certain school demographics.

I was also pleased to cosponsor an amendment from my colleague, Senator Brown of Ohio, to prohibit the Department of Education from continuing its problematic evaluation of the Upward Bound program until Congress has a chance to examine this policy as part of the Higher Education Act, HEA, reauthorization. I have been a strong supporter of the TRIO Upward Bound program for many years and continuously hear about the benefits it provides to Wisconsin students entering college, particularly first-generation college students.

Because of my strong support for Upward Bound, I continue to be concerned about the Department of Education's evaluation of Upward Bound, including the mandate that colleges had to recruit more students than they can serve under the Upward Bound program. I agree that Upward Bound, like other Federal programs, needs to be evaluated to ensure Federal dollars are being spent wisely and effectively. But the Federal Government has a duty to design responsible evaluations of Federal programs, and I do not think the Department fulfilled that obligation with the design of this Upward Bound evaluation. I am pleased the Senate recognized that the ongoing evaluation is troublesome and agreed to prohibit funding for it until Congress can reexamine the Upward Bound evaluation as part of the ongoing HEA reauthorization.

I am pleased that my colleagues supported all of my amendments and accepted them. I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for their assistance and support with these amendments.

I would also like to comment briefly on an amendment that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Wayne Allard, brought to a vote. This amendment would have redirected funds from programs deemed ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART. This program was enacted into law as part of the Government Performance Results Act and is intended to better target Government dollars to the most efficient programs. Senator Allard's amendment would have cut the programs considered ineffective by PART by 10 percent, and then sent these dollars to the Federal deficit.

I share Senator Allard's goals of efficient Government spending and reducing the deficit; however, I have some concerns about the standards for evaluating Government programs in PART. There are several programs that are making a big, positive difference in communities, that score poorly on the assessment. Some of these programs I have supported for years, such as rural health programs, and various higher education programs. I think it is important to examine this tool more closely and see if there is a way to improve the assessment before cutting these programs. For this reason, I opposed this amendment, which would have had far-reaching implications.

I was pleased to support final passage of this bill which provides essential funding for education, health care, and job training programs. Many of these programs have seen drastic cuts over the past 6 years and I am happy that we have been able to more adequately fund these programs in this bill. I am disappointed that the President continues to say that he will veto this bill and I hope that he will reconsider in the coming days. Too many Americans are depending on the employment, health care, and education services provided in this legislation and they are the ones who will be negatively impacted if the President follows through on his veto threat. Much more remains to be done to correct the inadequate funding for these programs in recent years, but this bill is a step in the right direction.