Floor Statements

I am pleased today to introduce the National Security Reform Act of 2007, a bipartisan effort that has the support of Senators who I respect a great deal, and with whom I have worked over the years on the Patriot Act and other issues. It also has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum.

This past spring, the Inspector General of the Justice Department issued the results of a congressionally mandated audit, an audit that examined the FBI's implementation of its dramatically expanded authority under the USA PATRIOT Act to issue National Security Letters, or NSLs. The Inspector General found, as he put it: ``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' A subsequent internal audit conducted by the FBI itself confirmed the IG's findings.

After the IG report came out, the Judiciary Committee heard from the Inspector General himself, who described his conclusions in detail, and from the FBI Director, who talked about some steps the FBI is taking in response to the report.

I appreciate that the FBI agrees with the IG's conclusions and recognizes that it needs to change the way it does business when it comes to NSLs. But in my view, leaving it to the FBI to fix this problem is not enough.

Unfortunately, Congress shares some responsibility for the FBI's troubling implementation of these broad authorities. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process.

This Inspector General report proves that ``trust us'' doesn't cut it when it comes to the Government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records--without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. It was a significant mistake for Congress to grant the Government broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they wouldn't be misused.

Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

In addition, a Federal district court recently struck down one of the new NSL statutes, as modified by the Patriot Act reauthorization legislation enacted in 2006. The court found that a statutory provision permitting the FBI to impose a permanent, blanket nondisclosure order on recipients of NSLs violated the First Amendment.

Congress also has not provided sufficient privacy protections to govern the related authority in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which permits the Government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records, Section 215 was one of

the most controversial provisions in the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, Congress did not go nearly far enough in the reauthorization process in addressing the very legitimate privacy and civil liberties concerns that have been raised about this power, including with respect to the low standard the Government has to meet to obtain a Section 215 order, the entirely insufficient judicial review provisions, and the lack of other procedural protections.

All of this is why a bipartisan group of Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans, are introducing the National Security Letter Reform Act of 2007.

The bill places new safeguards on the use of National Security Letters and related Patriot Act authorities to protect against abuse. It restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent.

It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. It requires the Attorney General to issue minimization and destruction procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error.

On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government have reason to believe the records sought relate to a suspected terrorist or spy or someone directly linked to a suspected terrorist or spy, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them.

This legislation is a measured, reasonable response to a serious problem. The NSL authorities operate in secret. The Justice Department's classified reports to Congress on the use of NSLs were admittedly inaccurate. And when, during the reauthorization process, Congress asked questions about how these authorities were being used, we got empty assurances and platitudes that we now know were mistaken.

Oversight alone is not enough. Congress also must take corrective action. The Inspector General report has shown both that the executive branch cannot be trusted to exercise those powers without oversight and that current statutory safeguards are inadequate. This National Security Letter Reform Act is the answer.

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

I am pleased today to introduce the National Security Reform Act of 2007, a bipartisan effort that has the support of Senators who I respect a great deal, and with whom I have worked over the years on the Patriot Act and other issues. It also has the support of organizations and activists across the political spectrum.

This past spring, the Inspector General of the Justice Department issued the results of a congressionally mandated audit, an audit that examined the FBI's implementation of its dramatically expanded authority under the USA PATRIOT Act to issue National Security Letters, or NSLs. The Inspector General found, as he put it: ``widespread and serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. In many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.'' A subsequent internal audit conducted by the FBI itself confirmed the IG's findings.

After the IG report came out, the Judiciary Committee heard from the Inspector General himself, who described his conclusions in detail, and from the FBI Director, who talked about some steps the FBI is taking in response to the report.

I appreciate that the FBI agrees with the IG's conclusions and recognizes that it needs to change the way it does business when it comes to NSLs. But in my view, leaving it to the FBI to fix this problem is not enough.

Unfortunately, Congress shares some responsibility for the FBI's troubling implementation of these broad authorities. The FBI's apparently lax attitude and in some cases grave misuse of these potentially very intrusive authorities is attributable in no small part to the USA PATRIOT Act. That flawed legislation greatly expanded the NSL authorities, essentially granting the FBI a blank check to obtain some very sensitive records about Americans, including people not under any suspicion of wrong-doing, without judicial approval. Congress gave the FBI very few rules to follow and failed to adequately remedy those shortcomings when it considered the NSL statutes as part of the Patriot Act reauthorization process.

This Inspector General report proves that ``trust us'' doesn't cut it when it comes to the Government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records--without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. It was a significant mistake for Congress to grant the Government broad authorities and just keep its fingers crossed that they wouldn't be misused.

Congress has the responsibility to put appropriate limits on government authorities--limits that allow agents to actively pursue criminals, terrorists and spies, but that also protect the privacy of innocent Americans.

In addition, a Federal district court recently struck down one of the new NSL statutes, as modified by the Patriot Act reauthorization legislation enacted in 2006. The court found that a statutory provision permitting the FBI to impose a permanent, blanket nondisclosure order on recipients of NSLs violated the First Amendment.

Congress also has not provided sufficient privacy protections to govern the related authority in Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which permits the Government to obtain court orders for Americans' business records under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Often referred to as the ``library'' provision, although it covers all types of business records, Section 215 was one of

the most controversial provisions in the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, Congress did not go nearly far enough in the reauthorization process in addressing the very legitimate privacy and civil liberties concerns that have been raised about this power, including with respect to the low standard the Government has to meet to obtain a Section 215 order, the entirely insufficient judicial review provisions, and the lack of other procedural protections.

All of this is why a bipartisan group of Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans, are introducing the National Security Letter Reform Act of 2007.

The bill places new safeguards on the use of National Security Letters and related Patriot Act authorities to protect against abuse. It restricts the types of records that can be obtained without a court order to those that are the least sensitive and private, and it ensures that the FBI can only use NSLs to obtain information about individuals with some nexus to a suspected terrorist or spy. It makes sure that the FBI can no longer obtain the sensitive records of individuals three or four times removed from a suspect, most of whom would be entirely innocent.

It prevents the use of so-called ``exigent letters,'' which the IG found the FBI was using in violation of the NSL statutes. It requires additional congressional reporting on NSLs, and it requires the FBI to establish a compliance program and tracking database for NSLs. It requires the Attorney General to issue minimization and destruction procedures for information obtained through NSLs, so that information obtained about Americans is subject to enhanced protections and the FBI does not retain information obtained in error.

On Section 215, the legislation establishes a standard of individualized suspicion for obtaining a FISA business records order, requiring that the government have reason to believe the records sought relate to a suspected terrorist or spy or someone directly linked to a suspected terrorist or spy, and it creates procedural protections to prevent abuses. The bill also ensures robust, meaningful and constitutionally sound judicial review of both National Security Letters and Section 215 business records orders, and the gag orders that accompany them.

This legislation is a measured, reasonable response to a serious problem. The NSL authorities operate in secret. The Justice Department's classified reports to Congress on the use of NSLs were admittedly inaccurate. And when, during the reauthorization process, Congress asked questions about how these authorities were being used, we got empty assurances and platitudes that we now know were mistaken.

Oversight alone is not enough. Congress also must take corrective action. The Inspector General report has shown both that the executive branch cannot be trusted to exercise those powers without oversight and that current statutory safeguards are inadequate. This National Security Letter Reform Act is the answer.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

If I do not use all the time, I will certainly be happy to yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I will oppose the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act. For 7 years, I have worked with Senator McCain and many of our colleagues on essential reforms of the Corps of Engineers and have long anticipated the day the Congress enacts meaningful reform.

Unfortunately, today is not that day, and this is not the reform bill the country needs.

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 the projects the Corps builds are safe, appropriate, environmentally responsible, and fiscally sound. The urgency and necessity could not be clearer.

Unfortunately, the conference report includes weak reforms. The Senate twice voted in support of strong reform language, when it passed WRDA bills earlier this year and last Congress. But the conference report we are about to vote on has been stripped of many important safeguards that would ensure accountability and prevent the Corps from manipulating the process. We have compromised enough over the years. We can no longer afford a system that favors wasteful projects over the needs of the American people.

The bill brought back from conference is particularly disappointing because a few months ago, on May 15, Senators Reid, Boxer, and I entered into a colloquy in which we agreed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would ensure the strong Senate reforms would be the minimum reforms coming out of conference and enacted into law. That agreement, apparently, has counted for little.

I am particularly troubled by the changes made to the bill's independent review provision during negotiations between the House and the Senate. The Senate version of the bill included a strong independent review provision, which I successfully offered as an amendment to last year's bill and which was again included in this year's WRDA.

Subjecting Corps of Engineers project studies to a review by an independent panel of experts will help ensure future Corps projects do not waste taxpayer money or endanger public safety and that environmental impacts are avoided or minimized.

Unfortunately, the independent review provision included in the conference report was significantly weakened in several respects. First, it does not ensure independence of the review process. Under the conference report, the supposedly ``independent'' review is not independent. The review process is run by the Corps rather than outside the Agency, as required by the Senate bill.

The Corps Chief of Engineers is given significant authority to decide the timing of review, the projects to be reviewed, and whether to implement a review panel's recommendations, and, apparently, even has the ability to control the flow of information received by the review panel.

The Corps was not given the authority to determine the scope of the review, but in these other respects, it was given far too much authority, all of which will compromise the independence of the review that is performed.

Second, it terminates the independent review provision 7 years after enactment. It is reasonable for Congress to continually evaluate how the program is working, but to presume there is not a need for a long- term review and set a sunset date is irresponsible.

Independent reviews should be permanently integrated into the Corp's planning process. The burden should be on the Corps to demonstrate why it does not need a congressionally mandated review process, rather than on Congress to wage another battle to extend the requirement in 7 years.

Third, it allows the Corps to exempt projects. The Senate provisions established mandatory review when clear triggers are met. However, the conference report gives the Corps fairly broad discretion to decide what projects get reviewed. It expands the House's loophole allowing the Corps to exempt projects that exceed the mandatory $45 million cost trigger. The Corps can exempt Continuing Authority Program projects, certain rehabilitation projects, and, most egregiously, projects it determines are not controversial or only require an Environmental Assessment rather than a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement.

It is this very decision, whether to do an EA or an EIS, that is often in need of review. Furthermore, a project's economic justification, engineering analysis, and formulation of project alternatives are critical elements that should be looked at for all major projects, not just those with significant environmental impact.

The conference report also prevents review of most ongoing studies. Although the conference report allows the Corps to exempt projects from review, it does not give the Corps equal authority to include projects. The bill includes restrictive language that prevents the Corps from reviewing studies that were initiated more than 2 years ago, or that were initiated in the last 2 years but already have an ``array of alternatives'' identified, which occurs early in the process.

The Senate language would have allowed the Corps to initiate a review for any project that does not have a draft feasibility report.

The conference report also eliminates the requirement that a review is mandatory if requested by a Federal agency. The Senate bill would have made a project review mandatory if requested by a Federal agency with the authority to review Corps projects. Instead, the conference report gives the Corps the authority to reject the request and requires the Federal agency to appeal the decision to the Council on Environmental Quality.

The Corps should be required to conduct a review made by the head of another agency that is charged with reviewing Corps projects or, at a minimum, to justify to the Council on Environmental Quality why it wants to deny such a request.

The final problem I wish to highlight is the conference report does not make sure the Corps is accountable. The conference report eliminated a key provision in the Senate bill that ensured accountability. Specifically, the provision would have required that if a project ends up in court, the same weight is given to the panel and the Corps' opinion if the Corps cannot provide a good example for why it ignored the panel's recommendations. By dropping this accountability requirement, the conference report allows the Corps to ignore the panel's recommendations, as the Corps is currently doing with its own internal review process.

I would love to be able to join my colleagues in claiming this is a ``historic moment.'' I am pleased that some of the other reforms I fought for are included in this bill. We have come a long way in the last 7 years, as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan majority of my colleagues who supported the Senate's reforms last year and again earlier this year.

But we have not come far enough, and that is truly regrettable. Why should the taxpayers of this country have to continue wondering if their dollars are being spent on projects that lack merit, hurt the environment or are not entirely reliable? Is not Congress finally willing to put an end to the longtime practice of doling out projects to Members regardless of those projects' merits? How many more flawed projects or wasted dollars will it take before we say enough?

I am pleased the conference report contains some modest reforms, but we can do much better than that. In fact, we did much better than that when we passed the Senate bill not long ago. Congress needs to get this right; I think the stakes are too high.

Unfortunately, for the reasons I have explained, the conference report fails to do enough. It contains severely compromised language that does not fix the status quo under which Congress uses the Corps to fund pet projects that are not justified or adequately reviewed.

I wish to also express my concern with the cost of the bill which has ballooned to $23 billion, $23 billion from the $14, $15 billion cost of the House and Senate versions.

Nearly $1 billion of the additional cost is for 19 projects that were added during conference, neither the Senate nor the House has previously reviewed these projects.

My colleagues have previously stood on the Senate floor and said the cost of the bill does not matter because WRDA is merely an authorizing bill and not an appropriations bill. We will sort out our priorities later, they say.

I think the American taxpayers join me in saying this is absolutely irresponsible and shirks our responsibilities as elected officials.

There is already a $58 billion backlog of construction projects previously authorized, and with only $2 billion annually appropriated for project construction, this means the Nation's most pressing needs face significant competition for funding and likely delays.

Furthermore, this bill authorizes a significant number of projects and studies that are beyond the Corps' primary mission areas. The Corps cannot be everything to everyone, and Congress does need to discipline itself and set priorities.

I will continue to work with my colleagues to institute a system for prioritizing Corps projects and other critical reforms. We may have an opportunity to pass those reforms sooner than some had hoped. The administration has indicated the President will veto this bill, this bloated bill.

Rather than overriding a veto, I hope the Congress will use that veto as an opportunity to rethink the flawed mindset that resulted in this bill and in previous WRDA bills. We do not do our constituents favors by spending their tax dollars on projects that are not justified or fully reviewed. We need reforms to make sure these tax dollars are spent in the most important priorities, not just on members' pork.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the WRDA conference report.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DURBIN.) The Senator from Missouri.

Mr. President, I, of course, thank the Senator from California, who is chair of the key committee on this bill, for her persistence in trying to get this bill through the Senate. We came to the floor twice this

spring to try to get consent to pass the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act. Each time an objection was made on behalf of an unidentified Republican Senator. Yet no Senator had come to us to let us know what his or her objection to the bill is. The source of the objection apparently didn't want to be identified, but when the President signed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act last week, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, S. 1, fortunately, secret holds become a thing of the past, and I am very proud to have been deeply involved with passage of that legislation. So if an objection was lodged today, the objecting Senator would have had to come forward in 6 session days.

As far as I know, this was going to be the first test of the new rule on secret holds, and I was looking forward to learning who the real objector was, as the rule requires, if an objection was made on behalf of an unidentified Senator. But now it appears that the Senator from Nevada has actually identified himself as the objector to the bill, so we know what is going on here.

I believe the new provision under the new law is the reason this individual identified himself. I don't think that would have happened had it not been for the positive deterrent effect this new legislation has. Senator Feinstein and I can cite this as the first time this was successfully forced in the case of a secret hold.

This underlying bill about disclosure, which I authored along with others, is completely noncontroversial. This simply put Senate campaigns under the same obligation to file their reports electronically that the House and Presidential campaigns have been forced to do for years. There is simply no reason that the information in Senate campaign finance reports should remain less accessible to the public than any other campaign finance reports. We are now at 41 bipartisan cosponsors. As the Senator from California pointed out, not a single concern about the bill was heard in the Rules Committee. The bill passed by voice vote, and no one has come to us with any concerns about it at all. So the time has come to get it done. The Senator from Nevada has made an alternative proposal to bring up the bill but to make an amendment in order. The amendment he wants to offer, however, has nothing to do with this bill. Indeed, it is a very controversial proposal to require groups that file ethics complaints to disclose their donors. I am sure the charitable and advocacy organizations will find this amendment quite controversial. It should be referred to the appropriate committee and given very searching study before it is offered on the floor. As the Senator from California said, it would certainly be a poison pill for the underlying bill, which thus far has had no public opposition whatsoever. So I am pleased the Senator from California objected. We are happy to make that objection very public.

I thank the chairman of the committee, the Senator from California. I will say again, it looks as though we made a little bit of progress. No longer is there a secret hold on the bill. Instead, the Senator from Nevada has made it plain he is the one holding up the bill by insisting on offering an unrelated amendment. That is unfortunate, but at least we know what we are dealing with. I hope in the days ahead we will be able to prevail on him to change his approach.

There are some bills where it is simply not appropriate to seek to add extraneous and controversial amendments. The amendment he has proposed is surely a poison pill for this bill, and we need to get this bill in place soon so these requirements of disclosure will apply during the 2008 election season.

Once again, I truly thank the Senator from California, and I look forward to getting this bill passed in the near future.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Amendment No. 2064?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside.

Madam President, I now call up amendment No. 2924.

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

Madam President, last week, as the administration was trying to convince us to stay the latest course in Iraq, it made very little mention of the fact that in every month this year, January through August, substantially more U.S. troops have died in Iraq than in the corresponding month in 2006.

It also had little to say about the British survey released last week which found that nearly one in two Baghdad households has lost at least one member to war-related violence and that 22 percent of surveyed households across the nation have endured at least one death. Based on the number of households in Iraq, this could mean that upwards of 1 million civilian deaths have occurred as a result of the war in Iraq.

Despite these facts, this administration assures us that violence is decreasing and that the security situation in Iraq is getting better. They tell us success is within reach and that we are closer to attaining our objectives, even though those objectives keep changing-- most recently from supporting a strong central government to a more bottom-up and local approach. Just give us more time, they say, just as they said in 2004 and in 2005 and in 2006. The slogan may be different. We have had ``Mission Accomplished'' and ``Stay the Course'' and ``The New Way Forward'' and now ``Return on Success.'' But each time, we are told we are on the right road until, that is, we reach another dead end and then a new slogan is invented to justify our open-ended presence in Iraq. As the administration blunders from one mistake to another, brave American troops are being injured and killed in Iraq, our military is being overstretched, countless billions of dollars are being spent, the American people are growing more and more frustrated and outraged, and our national security, quite frankly, is being undermined.

Our top national security priority should be going after al-Qaida and its affiliates. They are waging a global campaign from north Africa to Southeast Asia. We cannot afford to continue to focus so much of our resources on one single country without a legitimate strategy for dealing with the threats posed by al-Qaida's global reach.

Instead of seeing the big picture, instead of placing Iraq in the actual context of a comprehensive and global campaign against a ruthless enemy, this administration persists in the tragic mistake it made over 4 years ago when it took this country to war in Iraq. That war has led to the deaths of more than 3,700 Americans and perhaps as many as 1 million Iraqi civilians, it has deepened instability throughout the Middle East, it has jeopardized our credibility, and it has clearly alienated our friends and allies.

This summer's declassified National Intelligence Estimate confirms that al-Qaida remains the most serious threat to the United States. Indeed, key elements of that threat have been regenerated, have even been enhanced. While we have been distracted by the war in Iraq, al- Qaida has protected, rebuilt, and strengthened its safe haven in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan and has increased its collaboration with regional terrorist groups in other parts of the world. With its safe haven, al-Qaida is working to expand its network and, therefore, its ability to strike Western targets, including ones right here in the United States.

The administration has much to say about al-Qaida in Iraq. They will not tell you al-Qaida in Iraq is an al-Qaida affiliate which was spawned by this disastrous war, however, and they would rather not talk about al-Qaida's safe haven in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region or even recognize the serious global threat that continues to exist and that has even been strengthened while our troops are dying in Iraq. That tells you all you need to know about the administration's painfully narrow focus on Iraq.

The war in Iraq is not making us safer. It is making us more vulnerable. It is stretching our military to the breaking point and inflaming tensions and anti-American sentiment in an important and volatile part of the world. It is playing into the hands of our enemies, as even the State Department recognized when it said the war in Iraq is ``used as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity in neighboring countries.''

Of course, it would be easy to put all the blame on the administration, but I am afraid Congress is complicit too. Congress authorized the war. Congress has so far allowed it to continue despite strong efforts from the new Democratic leadership. Now, once again, it is up to us in Congress to reverse this President's intractable policy, to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to protect our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq. We have the power and the responsibility to act, and we must act now.

I am not suggesting that we abandon the people of Iraq or that we ignore the political stalemate there and the rapidly unfolding humanitarian crisis which has displaced more than 4 million Iraqis from their homes. These critical issues require the attention and constructive engagement of U.S.

policymakers, key regional players, and the international community. But such turbulence cannot and will not be resolved by a massive military engagement. The administration's surge is another dead end. The surge was supposedly aimed at creating the space necessary for political compromise, but the Iraqi Government is no more reconciled than it was when the surge began, and American troops are dying in greater numbers--greater numbers--than last year or the year before.

That is why I am again offering an amendment, with the majority leader, Harry Reid, and Senators Leahy, Boxer, Whitehouse, Harkin, Sanders, Schumer, Dodd, Durbin, and Menendez. Our amendment, which is similar to legislation we introduced earlier this year, would require the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days of enactment, and it would require the redeployment to be completed by June 30, 2008.

At that point, with our troops safely out of Iraq--and I repeat that--at that point, with our troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: providing security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure, training the Iraqi security forces, providing training and equipment to U.S. service men and women to ensure their safety and security, and conducting targeted operations limited in duration and scope against members of al-Qaida and other affiliated international terrorist organizations.

By enacting Feingold-Reid, we can finally focus on what should be our top national security priority--waging a global campaign against al- Qaida and its affiliates. Our amendment will allow targeted missions against al-Qaida in Iraq, but it will not allow the administration to maintain substantial numbers of U.S. troops in that country.

The amendment will also allow training of Iraqis who have taken steps to address serious concerns about the loyalties of the ISF. The Government Accountability Office has found that the ISF have been infiltrated by Shia militia, and General Jones's recent report indicated ISF are compromised by militia and sectarian alliances. In addition, there have been several reports of ISF attacks upon U.S. troops. That is why we do not allow training for Iraqis who have been involved in sectarian violence or attacks upon Americans.

We also prevent the ``training'' exception from being used as a loophole to keep tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq. We do this by stipulating that U.S. troops providing training cannot be embedded or take part in combat operations with the ISF. Training should be training, not a ruse for keeping American troops on the front lines of the Iraqi civil war. Of course, U.S. troops can take part in combat operations specifically against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Some of my colleagues will oppose this amendment. That is their right. But I hope none of them will suggest that Feingold-Reid would hurt the troops by denying them equipment or support. Why do I hope they don't say that? Because there is no truth to the argument. None. This is an absolutely phony argument used time and again to try to get away from what this amendment actually does. Passing this legislation will result in our troops being safely redeployed by the deadline we set. At that point, with the troops safely out of Iraq, funding for the war would end, with the narrow exceptions I listed. That is what Congress did in 1993 when it voted overwhelmingly to bring our military mission in Somalia to an end by setting a deadline after which funding for that mission would end. And that is what Congress must do again to terminate the President's unending mission in Iraq.

In order to make clear our legislation will protect the troops, we have added language requiring that redeployment ``shall be carried out in a manner that protects the safety and security of United States troops,'' and we have specified that nothing in this amendment will prevent U.S. troops from receiving the training or equipment they need ``to ensure, maintain, or improve their safety and security.'' So I hope we will not be hearing any more phony arguments about troops on the battlefield somehow not getting the supplies they need.

Other amendments might set goals for redeployment or merely call for a change in mission, but those proposals do not go far enough. Nor is it sufficient to pass legislation that allows substantial numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely. As the President's Iraq policy continues unchecked, we need to invoke the power and the responsibility bestowed upon us by the Constitution and bring this to a close.

This war doesn't make sense. It is hurting our country, our military, and our credibility. It is time for this war to end. The American people know this, and they are looking to us to act. I hope we will not let them down again.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I surely agree with the Senator from Arizona. I also wish we were out here working on something else, perhaps one of our political reform bills. We had started working on our campaign finance reform bill long before 9/11, and we are still working on those issues together. It is certainly tragic for this country that, instead, we are mired in a situation in Iraq that takes us away not only from our national security issues but also our domestic issues that need attention.

But I thank my colleague from Arizona. He argues on the merits. He doesn't hide behind the resume of a general or talk about or use some other person as a human shield. He talks about the merits of the issue. He and I have had a chance, thanks to his invitation on two occasions, to visit Iraq and look at what was happening. Frankly, we just come to different conclusions. In fact, we couldn't be more far apart on this issue. Nonetheless, I respect the way he argues and the way we discuss this, and I thank him for it.

In a moment, I will turn to one of my colleagues to speak, but I want to briefly respond to a couple of the issues that were brought up by the Senator from Arizona. The Senator from Arizona and I agree absolutely on something: We fear failure in the fight against terrorism. We want to defeat those who attacked us on 9/11.

For me, the fight is a global fight, which we have been distracted from due to Iraq. So what I am concerned about is that a continued effort in Iraq could lead to the ultimate failure in the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11. It could lead to a surrender, a true surrender against those who declared war on our country on September 11, 2001. So that is the failure I fear. That is the failure I want to make sure doesn't happen, because we have to protect the American people.

The Senator from Arizona points out the very difficult problem of Iran, which is related to but also separate from the question of al- Qaida.

He says: What happens if we leave Iraq?

Let me tell you something. What we are doing in Iraq right now is the best deal Iran ever had. We take all the hits, we lose the people, we pay for everything, and their influence in Iraq increases every day. And they do not have to worry about a restive Sunni population in their country because they are not moving into Iraq directly. But if we left, they would have to think twice about their own stability, if they tried to mess around in Iraq directly.

So, almost unbelievably, our strategy in Iraq plays into both the hands of al-Qaida and Iran. It is the most foolish move we could make in the fight against those who attacked us on 9/11 and against those who are being very threatening to us at this point in the name of the Iranian leader. It is the wrong strategy in both regards.

The Senator from Arizona asks: How are we going to get other countries engaged if we leave Iraq? It is the reverse. None of these bordering countries are going to get serious. None of them are going to become engaged if they think we are going to just stay there--for a couple of reasons. One is, Why should they? We are there putting up with all the violence and difficulties and taking all the losses. They don't have to spend anything.

The Senator from Arizona and I heard the Kuwaitis talk about this in Kuwait, saying: Well, you know, you went in there; now you deal with it. If we are not in there, not only Iran and Syria, Jordan and others have a definite interest in Iraq not being chaotic. That is when they start to perform.

The other problem is, How can these Islamic countries help stabilize Iraq now when in their countries our involvement in Iraq is perceived as an occupation of an Islamic country? So our very strategy stymies the potential for stability being assisted by the other countries in the region.

Those are just a couple of responses on the merits to some of the points

made by the Senator from Arizona. I firmly believe our strategy is hurting our country desperately in terms of our national security, and that is why I and others offer the amendment.

At this point, I would like to yield 10 minutes to one of the strongest advocates for this policy of trying to terminate this involvement, the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his very strong statement in support of our amendment, and even more for his extremely passionate and consistent support all year.

I yield 10 minutes to another cosponsor of the amendment, the assistant majority leader, Senator Durbin.

I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of the Feingold-Reid amendment, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his support and his very strong, effective statement about how important it is that we move forward on this amendment.

I now yield to another of our excellent cosponsors and supporters throughout this process, the Senator from New Jersey, 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his sponsorship of our amendment and for his powerful statement on its behalf, recognizing the reality of what is happening in Iraq and our need to change course.

How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow.

Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator from Michigan for her support and for her statement as well.

At this point, I want to turn to the majority leader. I am delighted that he has joined me on this amendment and has been such a strong leader over the many months since the election in trying to end this war in Iraq. I thank him for his courage and his leadership, and I yield him 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

I thank the Senator from Ohio for his important statement. I am grateful to him. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Arizona for the quality of the debate and, in particular, on such a difficult and emotional issue. I thank all the leadership on our side for speaking on behalf of our amendment.

I appreciate, in particular, the Senator's last comment. He and I share one top priority, and that is the national security of the United States of America. We disagree on what role this Iraq situation plays. I think it weakens our country; he happens to think it will strengthen our country. But our goals are the same.

This amendment is a reflection of my belief and the majority leader's belief that the only way to truly respond to those who attacked us on 9/11 and stop them from continuing activities is to stop the hemorrhaging of our country regarding the Iraq intervention.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I opposed the amendments offered by Senators Cornyn and Boxer because they were a diversion from the real issue before us; namely, the future of our military involvement in Iraq. I disagreed with the language used in all of the ads addressed in these amendments, but we should not let those ads sidetrack the real work of the Senate. I hope the Senate will not get in the habit of condemning political speech, even speech that is offensive.

Mr. President, I am today introducing the Teachers at the Table Act of 2007. This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska. I am pleased this legislation is cosponsored by my colleagues, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

This legislation would create a Volunteer Teacher Advisory Committee to advise Congress and the Department of Education on the impact of No Child Left Behind, NCLB, on students, their families, and the classroom learning environment. The teachers serving on this Committee would be chosen from past or present state or national Teachers of the Year and would be competitively selected by the Secretary of Education and the majority and minority leaders of both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

Every year I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hold a listening session to listen to Wisconsinites concerns and answer their questions. Since NCLB was enacted in early 2002, education has rated as one of the top issues brought up at my listening sessions. I have received feedback from constituents about the noble intentions of NCLB, but I have also heard

about the multitude of implementation problems with the law's provisions. The feedback from teachers, parents, school administrators, and school board members has been invaluable over the past 5 years and yesterday, I introduced the Improving Student Testing Act of 2007 in response to some of that feedback.

The Teachers at the Table bill I am introducing today seeks to help ensure that Congress and the Department of Education receive high- quality yearly feedback on how NCLB is impacting classroom learning around the country. The teachers who will serve on the committee will be competitively chosen from past and present Teachers of the Year, who represent some of the best that teaching has to offer. The bill would create a committee of twenty teachers, with four selected by the Secretary of Education and four selected by each of the majority and minority leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. These teachers would serve 2-year terms on the advisory committee and would work to prepare annual reports to Congress as well as quarterly updates on the law's implementation.

Every State and every school district is different and this legislation ensures that the teacher advisory committee will represent a wide range of viewpoints. The bill specifies that the volunteer teacher advisory committee should include teachers from diverse geographic areas, teachers who teach different grade levels, and teachers from a variety of specialty areas. Creating a diverse committee will help ensure that the committee presents a broad range of viewpoints on NCLB to Congress and the Department of Education.

Much work needs to be done this fall to reform many of the mandates of NCLB and I look forward to working with my colleagues during the reauthorization to make those necessary changes. One thing is certain-- whatever form the reauthorized NCLB takes, there will be a need for consistent feedback from a diverse range of viewpoints.

We need to ensure that the voices of students, educators, parents, and administrators, who are on the front-lines of education reform in our country, are heard during the reauthorization of NCLB this fall and going forward during the reauthorized law's implementation in years to come. This bill seeks to help address that need by enlisting the service of some of America's best teachers in providing information to Federal education policymakers. The advisory committee created by this legislation will provide nationwide feedback and will allow Congress to hear about NCLB directly from those who deal with the law and its consequences on a daily basis.

Mr. President, I am today introducing the Teachers at the Table Act of 2007. This bill is the Senate companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives earlier this year by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York and Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska. I am pleased this legislation is cosponsored by my colleagues, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

This legislation would create a Volunteer Teacher Advisory Committee to advise Congress and the Department of Education on the impact of No Child Left Behind, NCLB, on students, their families, and the classroom learning environment. The teachers serving on this Committee would be chosen from past or present state or national Teachers of the Year and would be competitively selected by the Secretary of Education and the majority and minority leaders of both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives.

Every year I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties to hold a listening session to listen to Wisconsinites concerns and answer their questions. Since NCLB was enacted in early 2002, education has rated as one of the top issues brought up at my listening sessions. I have received feedback from constituents about the noble intentions of NCLB, but I have also heard

about the multitude of implementation problems with the law's provisions. The feedback from teachers, parents, school administrators, and school board members has been invaluable over the past 5 years and yesterday, I introduced the Improving Student Testing Act of 2007 in response to some of that feedback.

The Teachers at the Table bill I am introducing today seeks to help ensure that Congress and the Department of Education receive high- quality yearly feedback on how NCLB is impacting classroom learning around the country. The teachers who will serve on the committee will be competitively chosen from past and present Teachers of the Year, who represent some of the best that teaching has to offer. The bill would create a committee of twenty teachers, with four selected by the Secretary of Education and four selected by each of the majority and minority leaders in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. These teachers would serve 2-year terms on the advisory committee and would work to prepare annual reports to Congress as well as quarterly updates on the law's implementation.

Every State and every school district is different and this legislation ensures that the teacher advisory committee will represent a wide range of viewpoints. The bill specifies that the volunteer teacher advisory committee should include teachers from diverse geographic areas, teachers who teach different grade levels, and teachers from a variety of specialty areas. Creating a diverse committee will help ensure that the committee presents a broad range of viewpoints on NCLB to Congress and the Department of Education.

Much work needs to be done this fall to reform many of the mandates of NCLB and I look forward to working with my colleagues during the reauthorization to make those necessary changes. One thing is certain-- whatever form the reauthorized NCLB takes, there will be a need for consistent feedback from a diverse range of viewpoints.

We need to ensure that the voices of students, educators, parents, and administrators, who are on the front-lines of education reform in our country, are heard during the reauthorization of NCLB this fall and going forward during the reauthorized law's implementation in years to come. This bill seeks to help address that need by enlisting the service of some of America's best teachers in providing information to Federal education policymakers. The advisory committee created by this legislation will provide nationwide feedback and will allow Congress to hear about NCLB directly from those who deal with the law and its consequences on a daily basis.

Mr. President, this month millions of American schoolchildren are returning to classrooms to begin the new school year, making this a time of hope and possibilities. Students in my State of Wisconsin and around the country are meeting new teachers, getting reacquainted with old friends, joining clubs or athletic teams, and embarking on the next step in their educational careers. Teachers and administrators around the country are starting a new school year with fresh lesson plans and high goals for all the students in their schools. And many educators, parents, and school officials are continuing to work diligently toward the goal of closing the achievement gap that continues to exist throughout many communities across the country.

These students, teachers, and administrators will also face their sixth year under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda. NCLB, which is 2001- 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, requires that students be tested annually in reading and math, and starting this school year, in science. The law is up for reauthorization this year and it remains unknown how much change students, teachers, parents, and administrators can expect as Congress works to reauthorize the law.

I voted against No Child Left Behind in 2001 in large part because of the law's new Federal testing mandate. The comments that I heard from Wisconsinites during the 2001 debate and that I continue to hear 6 years later have been almost universally negative. While Wisconsinites support holding their schools accountable for results and closing the achievement gap, they are concerned about the Federal law's primary focus on standardized testing.

Let me make clear at the outset that this country has a long way to go toward ensuring that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, have a chance to get a good education. I remain troubled by the inequality in funding and resources provided to our Nation's schools and by the persistent segregation that schools around the country, including those in Wisconsin, continue to face. Moreover, I am 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.

All levels of government--local, State, and Federal--need to act to ensure that equal educational opportunities are afforded to every student in our country.

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.

Rather, the reauthorized ESEA needs to recognize that States and local communities have the primary responsibility for providing a good public education to our students. The reauthorized ESEA should also encourage States and local districts to pursue innovative reform efforts including utilizing more robust accountability systems that can measure student academic growth from year to year and measure student academic growth using multiple forms of assessment, rather than just standardized tests.

Today, I am introducing the Improving Student Testing Act to overhaul the Federal testing mandate and provide States and local districts flexibility to determine the frequency and use of standardized testing in their accountability systems. My legislation is fully offset, while providing approximately $200 million in deficit reduction over the next 5 years.

Nothing in my legislation would force States to alter their accountability systems in recognition of the fact that different States are at different stages of their education reform efforts and may wish to maintain their current assessment systems. However, my legislation says that for Federal accountability purposes, States can choose to test once in grades 3 to 5, 6 to 9, and 10 to 12 rather than the current Federal requirement for annual testing in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school.

For States that choose to test in grade spans instead of annually, my

legislation encourages them to use more than high-stakes standardized tests in their accountability systems. By removing the Federal requirement to test annually, Congress can encourage States and local districts to lead innovative school reform efforts, including developing more robust assessment systems that use a range of academic assessments, such as valid and reliable performance-based assessments, formative assessments that provide meaningful and timely feedback to both students and teachers, and portfolio assessments that allow students to accumulate a broad range of student work and assess their own learning as they progress through school.

I have heard from a number of teachers and administrators who are concerned about the testing burden NCLB imposed on our Nation's educational system. The Federal mandate to test annually has strapped State and local districts' financial resources. Congress promised States specific funding levels for Title I, part A in NCLB, but Congress has failed to live up to those promised resources every year since NCLB was enacted. Despite the lack of adequate resources, our schools continue to be forced to test and to ratchet up the consequences associated with these tests.

NCLB's testing mandates have also led to a substantial demand for increased numbers of standardized tests and I have heard from some Wisconsinites concerned that the testing industry cannot keep up with this demand. There have been stories coming in from around the country documenting the burden faced by the testing industry, including incorrectly scored tests, test scores arriving much later than expected, and schools given incorrect testing booklets and supplies by the testing companies.

My legislation would help alleviate this testing burden by providing States with the option to reduce the number of grades tested for Federal accountability purposes. Eighteen States would then be able to dedicate more of their critical Title I dollars toward efforts that will help close the achievement including improving teacher quality through professional development and providing more targeted instruction to disadvantaged students in critical subject areas.

Some may say that with a Federal requirement to test in grade spans and not every year, the students in the nontested years will be ignored. I have more faith in Wisconsin's teachers and other dedicated teachers around the country than to assume that because there is no external, federally required test, teachers will not teach their kids or ensure that their students make academic progress. Effective schools contain teachers who work collaboratively within grade levels and across grades to raise the academic achievement of every student. Good teachers know that they are responsible for ensuring all their students make substantial academic progress in a given year regardless of whether those students must take a federally imposed standardized test.

My legislation also provides States with the flexibility and resources to develop high-quality assessments that can be used to give a more accurate picture of student achievement. I have heard a number of criticisms of the standardized tests used in Wisconsin and around the country--namely, that they may not measure higher-order thinking skills and that the results are returned to teachers too late in the school year, preventing teachers from receiving feedback that could help inform their instructional techniques to increase student learning. It is important that Congress listen to the feedback provided by teachers and administrators from around the country and provide States and local districts with the flexibility to develop and use other types of assessments in their accountability systems.

My bill authorizes a competitive grant program to help States and local districts develop multiple forms of high-quality assessments, including formative assessments, performance-based assessments, and portfolio assessments. These assessments can give a more accurate and detailed picture of student achievement than a single standardized test. These assessments can also be designed to provide more immediate feedback to teachers and students than the statewide standardized tests used for Federal accountability purposes. By incorporating these richer assessments, teachers can better assess student learning throughout the school year and continuously modify their instruction to ensure all students continue to learn.

These high-quality, multiple measures can be more expensive for States to develop and my bill recognizes that cost by authorizing a competitive grant program to assist States in developing these assessments. States and local districts can use these funds for a variety of purposes, including training teachers in how to use these assessments, creating the assessments, aligning the assessments with State standards, and collaborating with other States to share information about assessment creation.

My legislation makes clear that these funds are not to be used for the purchase of additional test preparation materials. I have long been concerned that NCLB could result in a generation of students who know how to take tests, but who do not have the skills necessary to become successful adults. This grant program will help innovative States develop higher quality assessments to better ensure that the students in their State are prepared for careers in the 21st century, including the ability to think critically, analyze new situations, and work collaboratively with others.

My legislation also makes clear that these multiple forms of assessment are not a loophole for States and local districts to avoid accountability. Rather, my legislation recognizes that these multiple measures can provide a more accurate and more complete picture of student achievement. My legislation makes clear that these assessments must: be aligned with States' academic and content standards, be peer reviewed by the Federal Department of Education, produce timely evidence about student learning and achievement, and provide teachers with meaningful feedback so that teachers can modify and improve their classroom instruction to address specific student needs.

Congress also needs to reform NCLB's accountability provisions during the reauthorization process, including providing credit to schools that demonstrate their students have made substantial growth from year to year. Right now, NCLB measures students' achievement based primarily on reading and math tests, and students either achieve the cut score on the NCLB tests or they do not. A number of teachers and parents in Wisconsin have expressed concerned that NCLB's current approach leads schools to focus on students who are closest to achieving the cut score on tests so as to continue to boost the number of kids passing the test each year. As a result, parents and teachers are concern that the lowest achieving students who are not yet proficient and the highest performing students who are already proficient may be ignored in the effort to meet AYP each year.

My legislation seeks to address this concern by providing flexibility for States that maintain annual testing to develop accountability models capable of tracking student growth from year to year to better ensure that every student, regardless of his or her current academic level, continues to make academic progress. States seeking to use growth models in their accountability systems would have to prove that such growth models meet a number of minimum technical requirements, including ensuring the growth model: is of sufficient technical capacity to function fairly and accurately for all students, uses valid, reliable, and accurate measures, has a statewide privacy- protected data system capable of tracking student growth, does not set performance measures based on a student's background, and is capable of tracking student progress in at least reading and math. I am pleased there is substantial agreement in Congress that growth models should be part of a reauthorized ESEA, and I will work with my colleagues to ensure that any growth models included in the ESEA can be fairly implemented and are flexible enough for States and local districts to utilize in their accountability systems.

NCLB set the ambitious goal that all children will be proficient on State reading and math tests by the year 2014. I have heard from a number of

educators and administrators in Wisconsin and around the country who are concerned that very few States will be able to meet NCLB's 2014 deadline. I understand their concern, particularly in light of the fact that Congress has failed to provide the promised financial resources to meet NCLB's mandates. Our Nation needs to have high academic expectations for all of our students, but if Congress is going to set such ambitious goals for our schools to meet, we need to provide our schools with the resources to meet those goals.

So far, the Federal Government has not lived up to the funding promises it made when Congess passed NCLB in late 2001. The appropriated levels for title I, part A have failed to match the authorized levels for title I, part A every year from 2002 to 2007, resulting in an underfunding of title I, part A by over $40 billion since 2002. It is one thing to set ambitious targets for our Nation's schools with adequate resources provided to reach those targets. It is something entirely different to hold our schools accountable for ensuring all students are proficient by 2014 and providing our schools with less resources than were promised to them when NCLB passed. My legislation includes a funding trigger that will waive the 2014 deadline unless Congress fully funds title I, part A from now until 2014. If Congress maintains the 2014 deadline and does not provide additional resources to our Nation's schools, we are only setting our schools up for further failure as we approach 2014.

My legislation also reforms the peer-review provisions of NCLB to ensure that there is more transparency and consistency in the peer- review process. States are currently required to submit their State plans for approval by the Department of Education, and I have heard a number of concerns from my State and others that States do not receive consistent or timely information from the Department of Education during peer review. States have also voiced concern about their inability to speak directly with peer reviewers during the peer-review process in order to clarify reviewers' comments made about their State plans.

My bill would amend the peer-review language to ensure that the peer- review teams contain balanced representation from State education agencies, local education agencies, and practicing educators. My legislation also includes language that requires the Secretary to provide consistency in peer-review decisions among the States and requires the Department's inspector general to conduct independent evaluations every 2 years to ensure consistency of approval and denial decisions by the Department of Education from State to State. My bill would also require the Secretary to ensure that States are given the opportunity to receive timely feedback from peer-review teams as well as directly interact with peer-review panels on issues that need clarification during the peer-review process.

Despite my concerns regarding the testing provisions of NCLB, there are other provisions of the law that I continue to support. I have consistently heard from educators and other interested parties in my State of Wisconsin in favor of NCLB's requirement to disaggregate data by specific groups of children, including students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners. Teachers have told me that these provisions have added more transparency to school data and help to ensure that schools continue to remain focused on closing the achievement gap among these various groups of students and remain attentive to the academic needs of all students. My legislation builds on the requirement to disaggregate data by also requiring States to disaggregate high school graduation rates on the State report cards required under NCLB.

Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,'' and I think his statement can be properly applied to NCLB's requirement to disaggregate and report academic data by student subgroups. Information about the achievement gaps that exist throughout our Nation's schools, whether they are gaps in academic achievement or graduation rates, can help parents, educators, local school board members, and others continue to advocate for education reform at the local level. Some States already have the ability to disaggregate graduation rates by NCLB's subgroups, and my legislation provides funding to all States to comply with this public reporting requirement.

Tracking students' achievement and disaggregating student data are fundamental components of No Child Left Behind and require States to maintain large data systems containing detailed information about students. The bill that I am introducing will also ensure that these data systems are maintained in a way that safeguards individual privacy. Use of the data by educational entities, as well as disclosures of student-level data to third parties, will be carefully limited, and individuals will have a right to know who is inspecting their information and for what purpose.

My legislation also provides additional funding for States to build additional infrastructure at the State and local level in order to improve their educational accountability systems. States and local districts will have to secure additional resources in order to implement growth models or utilize multiple forms of assessment in their accountability systems. My bill creates a competitive and flexible grant program to help ensure the Federal Government does its part in assisting States in accessing these resourses.

States have varying capacity needs and funds under this program can help States build their privacy-protected educational databases, train individuals in how to use multiple measures of student achievement in State accountability systems, and provide additional professional development opportunities for both state education agency and local education agency staff members. I have heard from a number of State and local administrators who are trying diligently to reconcile increased Federal and State mandates with less financial resources. Providing additional resources will help build State and local educational infrastructure and will help encourage States to move to accountability systems that can measure student growth and use more than standardized test scores when making decisions about students and schools.

There are a number of other issues that we need to address in the NCLB reauthorization. My bill seeks to address some of the top concerns I have heard about from constituents around the State related to testing. During the reauthorization process, we need to examine and modify NCLB sanctions structure to address implementation problems that rural and large urban districts have faced. We also need to recognize that every school and every school district is different and the rigid sanctions of NCLB may not allow States and local districts the opportunity to implement a variety of other innvative school reform efforts.

We also need to address the diverse learning needs of students with disabilities and English language learners. We need to ensure that NCLB works in concert with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and that students with disabilities are provided with proper modifications on assessments without holding lower academic expectations for these students. I have long supported full funding for IDEA and strongly support high academic expectations for students with disabilities. I was disappointed the final NCLB conference report in 2001 dropped the Senate language on full funding of the Federal share of IDEA, and I hope we can be successful during this reauthorization process in efforts to fully fund IDEA.

The number of English language learners is growing around the country, including in my State of Wisconsin. I have heard concerns from educators around Wisconsin that NCLB does not properly address the unique learning needs of English language learners. Teachers are concerned about the lack of valid and reliable assessments for English language learners and the unfairness of testing these students when they may not yet have learned English well enough to take standardized tests in English. During the reauthorization, we need to ensure that additional resources are provided to develop valid and reliable assessments for English language learners so that these students are fairly assessed while learning the English language.

There are many issues that need to be addressed during the reauthorization process, and my bill seeks to address some of the issues related to testing under NCLB. I am pleased this bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, and that it has the support of the American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the School Social Work Association of America, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, the Wisconsin National Board Network of Wisconsin National Board Certified Teachers, and the Wisconsin School Administrator's Alliance, which includes the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, and the Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is the key Federal law impacting our nation's schools, and I have long supported the law's commitment to improving the quality of education provided to our Nation's most disadvantaged students. I strongly support holding schools accountable for both providing equal educational opportunities to all our students and for continuing to work to close the achievement gaps that exist in our Nation's schools.

I also strongly support ensuring that classroom teachers, local school districts, and States have the primary responsibility for making decisions regarding day-to-day classroom instruction. Unfortunately, under NCLB, too much of the activity in classrooms is being dictated by the Federal one-size- fits-all testing mandates and accountability provisions. The Federal Government should leave decisions about the frequency of standardized testing up to the States and local school districts that a bear the responsibility for educating our children. While standardized testing does have a role to play in measuring and improving student achievement, one high-stakes test alone cannot accurately or responsibly measure our students or our schools.

NCLB was based on a flawed premise--that the way to hold schools accountable and close the achievement gap was for the Federal Government to pile on more tests and use the tests as the primary tool to evaluate schools. Now, 5 years into the law's implementation, we have evidence showing the need to reduce NCLB's burden on schools, by providing real support for students and teachers and by providing flexibility to Sates to use more than standardized tests to measure the achievement of students. This country has a long way to go before the opportunity for an equal education is afforded to all of America's students and Congress can take a step toward helping to ensure that opportunity by substantially reforming the mandates of NCLB. It is time to fix No Child Left Behind, and to get back to learning--not just testing--in all of our Nation's public schools.

Mr. President, this month millions of American schoolchildren are returning to classrooms to begin the new school year, making this a time of hope and possibilities. Students in my State of Wisconsin and around the country are meeting new teachers, getting reacquainted with old friends, joining clubs or athletic teams, and embarking on the next step in their educational careers. Teachers and administrators around the country are starting a new school year with fresh lesson plans and high goals for all the students in their schools. And many educators, parents, and school officials are continuing to work diligently toward the goal of closing the achievement gap that continues to exist throughout many communities across the country.

These students, teachers, and administrators will also face their sixth year under the Federal No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, the centerpiece of President Bush's domestic agenda. NCLB, which is 2001- 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, requires that students be tested annually in reading and math, and starting this school year, in science. The law is up for reauthorization this year and it remains unknown how much change students, teachers, parents, and administrators can expect as Congress works to reauthorize the law.

I voted against No Child Left Behind in 2001 in large part because of the law's new Federal testing mandate. The comments that I heard from Wisconsinites during the 2001 debate and that I continue to hear 6 years later have been almost universally negative. While Wisconsinites support holding their schools accountable for results and closing the achievement gap, they are concerned about the Federal law's primary focus on standardized testing.

Let me make clear at the outset that this country has a long way to go toward ensuring that all students, regardless of their backgrounds, have a chance to get a good education. I remain troubled by the inequality in funding and resources provided to our Nation's schools and by the persistent segregation that schools around the country, including those in Wisconsin, continue to face. Moreover, I am 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.

All levels of government--local, State, and Federal--need to act to ensure that equal educational opportunities are afforded to every student in our country.

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.

Rather, the reauthorized ESEA needs to recognize that States and local communities have the primary responsibility for providing a good public education to our students. The reauthorized ESEA should also encourage States and local districts to pursue innovative reform efforts including utilizing more robust accountability systems that can measure student academic growth from year to year and measure student academic growth using multiple forms of assessment, rather than just standardized tests.

Today, I am introducing the Improving Student Testing Act to overhaul the Federal testing mandate and provide States and local districts flexibility to determine the frequency and use of standardized testing in their accountability systems. My legislation is fully offset, while providing approximately $200 million in deficit reduction over the next 5 years.

Nothing in my legislation would force States to alter their accountability systems in recognition of the fact that different States are at different stages of their education reform efforts and may wish to maintain their current assessment systems. However, my legislation says that for Federal accountability purposes, States can choose to test once in grades 3 to 5, 6 to 9, and 10 to 12 rather than the current Federal requirement for annual testing in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school.

For States that choose to test in grade spans instead of annually, my

legislation encourages them to use more than high-stakes standardized tests in their accountability systems. By removing the Federal requirement to test annually, Congress can encourage States and local districts to lead innovative school reform efforts, including developing more robust assessment systems that use a range of academic assessments, such as valid and reliable performance-based assessments, formative assessments that provide meaningful and timely feedback to both students and teachers, and portfolio assessments that allow students to accumulate a broad range of student work and assess their own learning as they progress through school.

I have heard from a number of teachers and administrators who are concerned about the testing burden NCLB imposed on our Nation's educational system. The Federal mandate to test annually has strapped State and local districts' financial resources. Congress promised States specific funding levels for Title I, part A in NCLB, but Congress has failed to live up to those promised resources every year since NCLB was enacted. Despite the lack of adequate resources, our schools continue to be forced to test and to ratchet up the consequences associated with these tests.

NCLB's testing mandates have also led to a substantial demand for increased numbers of standardized tests and I have heard from some Wisconsinites concerned that the testing industry cannot keep up with this demand. There have been stories coming in from around the country documenting the burden faced by the testing industry, including incorrectly scored tests, test scores arriving much later than expected, and schools given incorrect testing booklets and supplies by the testing companies.

My legislation would help alleviate this testing burden by providing States with the option to reduce the number of grades tested for Federal accountability purposes. Eighteen States would then be able to dedicate more of their critical Title I dollars toward efforts that will help close the achievement including improving teacher quality through professional development and providing more targeted instruction to disadvantaged students in critical subject areas.

Some may say that with a Federal requirement to test in grade spans and not every year, the students in the nontested years will be ignored. I have more faith in Wisconsin's teachers and other dedicated teachers around the country than to assume that because there is no external, federally required test, teachers will not teach their kids or ensure that their students make academic progress. Effective schools contain teachers who work collaboratively within grade levels and across grades to raise the academic achievement of every student. Good teachers know that they are responsible for ensuring all their students make substantial academic progress in a given year regardless of whether those students must take a federally imposed standardized test.

My legislation also provides States with the flexibility and resources to develop high-quality assessments that can be used to give a more accurate picture of student achievement. I have heard a number of criticisms of the standardized tests used in Wisconsin and around the country--namely, that they may not measure higher-order thinking skills and that the results are returned to teachers too late in the school year, preventing teachers from receiving feedback that could help inform their instructional techniques to increase student learning. It is important that Congress listen to the feedback provided by teachers and administrators from around the country and provide States and local districts with the flexibility to develop and use other types of assessments in their accountability systems.

My bill authorizes a competitive grant program to help States and local districts develop multiple forms of high-quality assessments, including formative assessments, performance-based assessments, and portfolio assessments. These assessments can give a more accurate and detailed picture of student achievement than a single standardized test. These assessments can also be designed to provide more immediate feedback to teachers and students than the statewide standardized tests used for Federal accountability purposes. By incorporating these richer assessments, teachers can better assess student learning throughout the school year and continuously modify their instruction to ensure all students continue to learn.

These high-quality, multiple measures can be more expensive for States to develop and my bill recognizes that cost by authorizing a competitive grant program to assist States in developing these assessments. States and local districts can use these funds for a variety of purposes, including training teachers in how to use these assessments, creating the assessments, aligning the assessments with State standards, and collaborating with other States to share information about assessment creation.

My legislation makes clear that these funds are not to be used for the purchase of additional test preparation materials. I have long been concerned that NCLB could result in a generation of students who know how to take tests, but who do not have the skills necessary to become successful adults. This grant program will help innovative States develop higher quality assessments to better ensure that the students in their State are prepared for careers in the 21st century, including the ability to think critically, analyze new situations, and work collaboratively with others.

My legislation also makes clear that these multiple forms of assessment are not a loophole for States and local districts to avoid accountability. Rather, my legislation recognizes that these multiple measures can provide a more accurate and more complete picture of student achievement. My legislation makes clear that these assessments must: be aligned with States' academic and content standards, be peer reviewed by the Federal Department of Education, produce timely evidence about student learning and achievement, and provide teachers with meaningful feedback so that teachers can modify and improve their classroom instruction to address specific student needs.

Congress also needs to reform NCLB's accountability provisions during the reauthorization process, including providing credit to schools that demonstrate their students have made substantial growth from year to year. Right now, NCLB measures students' achievement based primarily on reading and math tests, and students either achieve the cut score on the NCLB tests or they do not. A number of teachers and parents in Wisconsin have expressed concerned that NCLB's current approach leads schools to focus on students who are closest to achieving the cut score on tests so as to continue to boost the number of kids passing the test each year. As a result, parents and teachers are concern that the lowest achieving students who are not yet proficient and the highest performing students who are already proficient may be ignored in the effort to meet AYP each year.

My legislation seeks to address this concern by providing flexibility for States that maintain annual testing to develop accountability models capable of tracking student growth from year to year to better ensure that every student, regardless of his or her current academic level, continues to make academic progress. States seeking to use growth models in their accountability systems would have to prove that such growth models meet a number of minimum technical requirements, including ensuring the growth model: is of sufficient technical capacity to function fairly and accurately for all students, uses valid, reliable, and accurate measures, has a statewide privacy- protected data system capable of tracking student growth, does not set performance measures based on a student's background, and is capable of tracking student progress in at least reading and math. I am pleased there is substantial agreement in Congress that growth models should be part of a reauthorized ESEA, and I will work with my colleagues to ensure that any growth models included in the ESEA can be fairly implemented and are flexible enough for States and local districts to utilize in their accountability systems.

NCLB set the ambitious goal that all children will be proficient on State reading and math tests by the year 2014. I have heard from a number of

educators and administrators in Wisconsin and around the country who are concerned that very few States will be able to meet NCLB's 2014 deadline. I understand their concern, particularly in light of the fact that Congress has failed to provide the promised financial resources to meet NCLB's mandates. Our Nation needs to have high academic expectations for all of our students, but if Congress is going to set such ambitious goals for our schools to meet, we need to provide our schools with the resources to meet those goals.

So far, the Federal Government has not lived up to the funding promises it made when Congess passed NCLB in late 2001. The appropriated levels for title I, part A have failed to match the authorized levels for title I, part A every year from 2002 to 2007, resulting in an underfunding of title I, part A by over $40 billion since 2002. It is one thing to set ambitious targets for our Nation's schools with adequate resources provided to reach those targets. It is something entirely different to hold our schools accountable for ensuring all students are proficient by 2014 and providing our schools with less resources than were promised to them when NCLB passed. My legislation includes a funding trigger that will waive the 2014 deadline unless Congress fully funds title I, part A from now until 2014. If Congress maintains the 2014 deadline and does not provide additional resources to our Nation's schools, we are only setting our schools up for further failure as we approach 2014.

My legislation also reforms the peer-review provisions of NCLB to ensure that there is more transparency and consistency in the peer- review process. States are currently required to submit their State plans for approval by the Department of Education, and I have heard a number of concerns from my State and others that States do not receive consistent or timely information from the Department of Education during peer review. States have also voiced concern about their inability to speak directly with peer reviewers during the peer-review process in order to clarify reviewers' comments made about their State plans.

My bill would amend the peer-review language to ensure that the peer- review teams contain balanced representation from State education agencies, local education agencies, and practicing educators. My legislation also includes language that requires the Secretary to provide consistency in peer-review decisions among the States and requires the Department's inspector general to conduct independent evaluations every 2 years to ensure consistency of approval and denial decisions by the Department of Education from State to State. My bill would also require the Secretary to ensure that States are given the opportunity to receive timely feedback from peer-review teams as well as directly interact with peer-review panels on issues that need clarification during the peer-review process.

Despite my concerns regarding the testing provisions of NCLB, there are other provisions of the law that I continue to support. I have consistently heard from educators and other interested parties in my State of Wisconsin in favor of NCLB's requirement to disaggregate data by specific groups of children, including students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and English language learners. Teachers have told me that these provisions have added more transparency to school data and help to ensure that schools continue to remain focused on closing the achievement gap among these various groups of students and remain attentive to the academic needs of all students. My legislation builds on the requirement to disaggregate data by also requiring States to disaggregate high school graduation rates on the State report cards required under NCLB.

Justice Louis Brandeis once said, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,'' and I think his statement can be properly applied to NCLB's requirement to disaggregate and report academic data by student subgroups. Information about the achievement gaps that exist throughout our Nation's schools, whether they are gaps in academic achievement or graduation rates, can help parents, educators, local school board members, and others continue to advocate for education reform at the local level. Some States already have the ability to disaggregate graduation rates by NCLB's subgroups, and my legislation provides funding to all States to comply with this public reporting requirement.

Tracking students' achievement and disaggregating student data are fundamental components of No Child Left Behind and require States to maintain large data systems containing detailed information about students. The bill that I am introducing will also ensure that these data systems are maintained in a way that safeguards individual privacy. Use of the data by educational entities, as well as disclosures of student-level data to third parties, will be carefully limited, and individuals will have a right to know who is inspecting their information and for what purpose.

My legislation also provides additional funding for States to build additional infrastructure at the State and local level in order to improve their educational accountability systems. States and local districts will have to secure additional resources in order to implement growth models or utilize multiple forms of assessment in their accountability systems. My bill creates a competitive and flexible grant program to help ensure the Federal Government does its part in assisting States in accessing these resourses.

States have varying capacity needs and funds under this program can help States build their privacy-protected educational databases, train individuals in how to use multiple measures of student achievement in State accountability systems, and provide additional professional development opportunities for both state education agency and local education agency staff members. I have heard from a number of State and local administrators who are trying diligently to reconcile increased Federal and State mandates with less financial resources. Providing additional resources will help build State and local educational infrastructure and will help encourage States to move to accountability systems that can measure student growth and use more than standardized test scores when making decisions about students and schools.

There are a number of other issues that we need to address in the NCLB reauthorization. My bill seeks to address some of the top concerns I have heard about from constituents around the State related to testing. During the reauthorization process, we need to examine and modify NCLB sanctions structure to address implementation problems that rural and large urban districts have faced. We also need to recognize that every school and every school district is different and the rigid sanctions of NCLB may not allow States and local districts the opportunity to implement a variety of other innvative school reform efforts.

We also need to address the diverse learning needs of students with disabilities and English language learners. We need to ensure that NCLB works in concert with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and that students with disabilities are provided with proper modifications on assessments without holding lower academic expectations for these students. I have long supported full funding for IDEA and strongly support high academic expectations for students with disabilities. I was disappointed the final NCLB conference report in 2001 dropped the Senate language on full funding of the Federal share of IDEA, and I hope we can be successful during this reauthorization process in efforts to fully fund IDEA.

The number of English language learners is growing around the country, including in my State of Wisconsin. I have heard concerns from educators around Wisconsin that NCLB does not properly address the unique learning needs of English language learners. Teachers are concerned about the lack of valid and reliable assessments for English language learners and the unfairness of testing these students when they may not yet have learned English well enough to take standardized tests in English. During the reauthorization, we need to ensure that additional resources are provided to develop valid and reliable assessments for English language learners so that these students are fairly assessed while learning the English language.

There are many issues that need to be addressed during the reauthorization process, and my bill seeks to address some of the issues related to testing under NCLB. I am pleased this bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, and that it has the support of the American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the School Social Work Association of America, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, the Wisconsin National Board Network of Wisconsin National Board Certified Teachers, and the Wisconsin School Administrator's Alliance, which includes the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, and the Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is the key Federal law impacting our nation's schools, and I have long supported the law's commitment to improving the quality of education provided to our Nation's most disadvantaged students. I strongly support holding schools accountable for both providing equal educational opportunities to all our students and for continuing to work to close the achievement gaps that exist in our Nation's schools.

I also strongly support ensuring that classroom teachers, local school districts, and States have the primary responsibility for making decisions regarding day-to-day classroom instruction. Unfortunately, under NCLB, too much of the activity in classrooms is being dictated by the Federal one-size- fits-all testing mandates and accountability provisions. The Federal Government should leave decisions about the frequency of standardized testing up to the States and local school districts that a bear the responsibility for educating our children. While standardized testing does have a role to play in measuring and improving student achievement, one high-stakes test alone cannot accurately or responsibly measure our students or our schools.

NCLB was based on a flawed premise--that the way to hold schools accountable and close the achievement gap was for the Federal Government to pile on more tests and use the tests as the primary tool to evaluate schools. Now, 5 years into the law's implementation, we have evidence showing the need to reduce NCLB's burden on schools, by providing real support for students and teachers and by providing flexibility to Sates to use more than standardized tests to measure the achievement of students. This country has a long way to go before the opportunity for an equal education is afforded to all of America's students and Congress can take a step toward helping to ensure that opportunity by substantially reforming the mandates of NCLB. It is time to fix No Child Left Behind, and to get back to learning--not just testing--in all of our Nation's public schools.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support passage of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. This bill provides critical funding for many of our Nation's essential programs, including housing for low-income families, community and economic development programs, and transportation needs.

Affordable housing is becoming less, not more, available in the United States. Research shows that the number of families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost 2 million households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families spends more than 30 percent of its earnings on housing costs. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day and 2 million to 3 million Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities, towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans. Decent and affordable housing is essential to the well-being of Americans, and the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe and affordable housing.

This legislation provides critical funding for the section 8 voucher program. The section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in 1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's budget with approximately 2 million vouchers currently authorized. Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the demand that exists in communities around our country. I am pleased this Senate bill contains funding for new vouchers for homeless veterans and disabled families. This funding for new vouchers is a step in the right direction, but Congress needs to do much more to fund the section 8 program in the coming months and years to help ensure that funding levels for the program meet the demonstrated need for the program.

I am pleased that this bill rejected many of the suggested cuts in the President's budget request. This bill provides $100 million for the Hope VI program, a program dedicated to rehabilitating our Nation's public housing. Many public housing authorities throughout the country, including in Milwaukee, have done great work with Hope VI dollars, and I am pleased the Senate rejected the President's cut to this important program.

This legislation also provides increased funding for the Home Investment Partnerships Program, HOME, a program created in 1990 to assist States and local communities in producing affordable housing for low-income families. HOME is a grant program that allows participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Increased funding for HOME will help local communities, including those in Wisconsin, work to increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our country.

I was pleased the Senate included my amendment calling on HUD to report on its funding needs for the section 8 project-based rental assistance program. In the past few months, many housing providers participating in the project-based program have not received their housing assistance payments from HUD as scheduled. Both HUD and OMB need to closely examine their budgeting process for the project-based program to try to ensure these late payments do not occur in the future. I have heard from housing providers who are worried about how they will afford their mortgage payments and utility bills without timely payments from HUD. My amendment calls on HUD to provide Congress with an accurate accounting of the costs to completely fund all project-based contracts. I hope HUD will provide detailed information to Congress so we can address the shortfall this program is facing and help ensure that housing providers receive their payments from HUD.

I was pleased to support the investment in our vital transportation infrastructure in this legislation. After the tragic collapse of the I- 35W bridge in Minnesota, I also supported providing the specific funds to rebuild this roadway and dedicating additional funds through the Murray amendment for the acute problem of structurally deficient bridges throughout the Nation.

While this funding directed toward deficient bridges was an appropriate short-term investment, I would have concerns if it became a long-term policy. This concern is because shifting Federal funds toward the roads and bridges that have been the least well maintained can be a disincentive for States to make proper investments of their own and could result in a shift of funding from States, like Wisconsin, that have voluntarily made higher investments in their transportation infrastructure and have fewer deficient structures to States that have not made a similar level of investment. Wisconsin's rate of return on the Federal fund to address deficient bridges is only 42 cents on a dollar paid in from Wisconsin taxpayers. I have fought for years to secure a fair rate of return for Wisconsinites from the highway trust fund after decades of us being a donor State and would oppose a long- term policy of shifting funds from States that have kept up with their road and bridge maintenance to those that have not.

I supported the Dorgan/Specter amendment to prevent the implementation of the administration's new pilot program for Mexican trucks because the program raises serious safety and environmental concerns and could depress U.S. wages for truckers. This program is just another symptom of failed trade policies like NAFTA. Our trade policies should allow us to establish and enforce our own public safety, health, and environmental safeguards, which benefit American businesses, workers, and consumers, instead of helping to ship millions of jobs overseas.

I am disappointed the President has issued a veto threat on this appropriations bill. This legislation provides necessary funding for a number of important Federal programs to improve the quality of life in our Nation's communities, including infrastructure and housing needs. Many American families are depending on the program funding included in this bill. I hope the President will reconsider and remove his veto threat on this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, a bipartisan piece of legislation that will increase student aid by billions of dollars through cutting Federal subsidies to private banks and lenders. This is a significant victory for students around the country and in my State of Wisconsin, which is estimated to receive over $260 million in new need-based grant aid in the next 5 years and over $115 million in additional loan assistance over in the next 5 years. Wisconsin has a world-class higher education system and I am pleased to support this much-needed legislation that will help open the doors to college for more students in my State.

Access to a higher education is increasingly important in the competitive, global environment of the 21st century and is one of the most important investments our Federal Government can make to advance our country's economic growth. But while the importance of attending college continues to increase, the cost of attending college also continues to increase, which often causes financial strain on students and their families as they seek to finance the cost of higher education.

I am concerned about the continued educational attainment gap between rich and poor students and the fact that access to higher education too often depends on access to financial resources. The ability of a student to attain a higher education should not depend on that student's financial background, but rather on a student's desire to obtain a higher education. Expanding need-based grant aid is one of the best ways that the Federal Government can expand access to higher education for low income students and I am pleased the conference report we will adopt today does just that.

This conference report contains a significant boost in funding for the Pell grant program, ensuring that the maximum Pell grant award will reach $5,400 by 2012. I have long supported and led efforts in Congress to increase funding for the Pell grant program, a program dedicated to expanding access to college for low income students. I was pleased to join with my colleagues in February to pass a significant increase in the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,310 from $4,050, the first increase in 4 years. Earlier this year, I also joined with my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Collins, and Coleman to lead letters to both the Budget and Appropriations Committees that advocated for the highest possible increase in funding for Pell grants. This substantial increase in the Pell program will benefit millions of students during their higher education careers.

My colleagues and I have long fought against the declining purchasing power of the Pell grant by supporting substantial increases in the maximum grant award. According to data from the Department of Education, the maximum Pell grant covered half the cost of tuition, fees, room and board at public, 4-year colleges 20 years ago, but only covered a third of these same costs during the 2005-2006 period. The declining power of the Pell has impacted my State of Wisconsin as well.

In 1986-1987, the $2,100 maximum Pell grant covered 58 percent of college costs for Wisconsin students. In 2005-2006, the $4,050 maximum Pell grant only covered 38 percent of college costs in Wisconsin.

I have been a proud supporter of the Pell grant program for many years and I will continue to strongly advocate for increases in Pell funding in the annual appropriations process to provide the highest, fiscally responsible increase in the Pell program in the coming years. While this legislation is an important first step, we have more to do to help ensure the Pell program can adequately cover the costs of college attendance for low income students.

In addition to the declining purchasing power of need-based aid like Pell, the availability of such need-based grant aid does not come close to meeting the demand for it. As a result, an increasing number of students turn to Federal and private loans to finance their education. According to the College Board, in the late 1970s, over three-fourths of the Federal aid to students were grants, while 20 percent of Federal student aid were loans. Recent data from the College Board indicates that the breakdown between grant aid and loans had switched by 2006, with grant aid only making up twenty percent of the Federal student aid.

Students in my State of Wisconsin, like students in other parts of the country, are greatly affected by the Federal Government's increased reliance on student loans at the expense of grant aid. The Project on Student Debt reports that more than 60 percent of Wisconsin graduates in 2005 graduated with debt and the average student who graduated from a 4-year college in my State in 2005 owed over $17,000. This legislation seeks to help alleviate the debt burden that some students face upon graduation by cutting the student loan interest rates in half by 2011 for undergraduate students who have subsidized student loans.

Higher levels of debt can also influence the decisions students make about whether or not to take a job in the public interest sector or in the more lucrative private sector after graduation. We have all heard about students who are interested in working in areas like teaching, law enforcement, legal aid, or State and local government but who decide against taking these public interest jobs because of their high debt loads. It is unfortunate that so many students are forced to consider their debt loads when deciding which jobs to take or pursue. The loan forgiveness provision of this legislation will help those graduating students in Wisconsin and around the country who want to pursue careers in public service.

While I applaud much of the policy included in this measure, I am disappointed that we are again seeing the reconciliation process used to advance legislation that is not primarily a deficit reduction package. While there are better arguments for using reconciliation to consider this particular bill than there were for the reconciliation protection proposed for past legislation to open up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, I am still troubled by the use of this extraordinary procedure as a way to advance a significant policy change that is not primarily a deficit reduction package. Thanks to the efforts of our Budget Committee Chairman, Senator Conrad, the days when the reconciliation process could be totally subverted to advance legislation that actually worsened the deficit are over. I also commend Chairman Conrad for insisting during the conference discussions on the budget resolution that this particular reconciliation instruction move closer to a more reasonable qualifying threshold of deficit reduction than was initially proposed. I hope that in future budget resolutions, we can further tighten the use of reconciliation to ensure that it is used for what it was intended, namely to advance significant deficit reduction.

Passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 represents a great victory for students in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. I believe everyone deserves fair and equal access to a higher education and adoption of this bill moves us closer toward that vision. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming months and years to continue to expand the Pell grant program and other need-based programs so that hard-working students will be able to take advantage of the full opportunities that access to a higher education offers.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization, and was pleased that the fiscal year 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill included a provision prohibiting U.S. funds from going to any organization or program that directly supports such horrific practices. Unfortunately, the amendment offered by Senator Brownback undermined this provision by allowing the President to deny funds to any organization or program that he claims supports such practices. This administration has misused similar language to deny resources to the United Nations Population Fund simply because this agency has programs in China, where the government practices coercive abortions to enforce its one child policy. In fact, however, the UNFPA's program in China is specifically designed to pressure the Chinese to end the use of coercive tactics, and this amendment would undermine the good work that the UNFPA does.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the fiscal year 2008 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. The bill includes funding for critical renovations and repairs to military facilities and military family housing. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces are serving honorably under intense strains in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. We must take care of them and their families while they serve and when they return. This bill reverses a disturbing trend in recent years by finally providing sufficient funds to care for our Nation's veterans. I hope that we will have the chance soon to vote for a conference report reflecting the priorities in this bill so that there will be no delay--as there has been in recent years--in getting the Department of Veterans Affairs urgently needed funds. And I will continue working to make sure that this bill is only the beginning of a lasting commitment to providing veterans the best health care and benefits available.

I was particularly pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment requiring that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, study how the VA can best care for the mental health needs of female veterans. I decided to introduce this amendment after hearing concerns directly from Wisconsin veterans about insufficient mental health services for women. The number of women in the Armed Forces has grown rapidly, as has their exposure to combat. While the VA has taken important steps to establish services for women, there is little data on how VA mental health care funds are being used to address the needs of women. Indeed, mental health experts recently testified before the Congress that the VA does not have the capacity to address the needs of women veterans. This study will help ensure that the Veterans Administration dedicates the funds needed to care for women veterans.

I was pleased to support Senator Brown's amendment to ensure that the Veterans Administration abides by existing law which prohibits unnecessary studies on the privatization of VA functions and requires public-private competitions before outsourcing government jobs. This bill also includes additional funds for the Beneficiary Travel Program, an important VA program that benefits numerous Wisconsin veterans who live far from VA medical facilities.

The bill includes $15 million for funding for gulf war illnesses research. I strongly support research into treatments for these debilitating illnesses. Nearly 200,000 gulf war veterans--one in four of those who served--suffer from chronic multisymptom illness as a result of serving in the gulf, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs most recent study. These illnesses combine debilitating headaches, widespread muscle and joint pain, severe fatigue, cognitive problems, and other abnormalities. Current and future American military forces, as well as civilians, are also at risk of similar exposure.

Yet according to members of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, of all the money spent on research in this area--over $300 million over the past 12 years--only two studies have been done on treatments. It is time to accept that these are serious neurological illnesses and shift research to the identification of treatments. A promising pilot program to identify treatments and diagnostic tests was initiated last year by the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. I call on the Department to dedicate the funds appropriated in this act to the identification of treatments for these illnesses.

I understand that concerns have been expressed about the Veterans Administration leasing property at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Facility to private enterprises that are inappropriate for the hallowed grounds of a soldier's home. I supported Senator DeMint's unsuccessful amendment to delete language from the bill prohibiting the VA from leasing excess property at the West Los Angeles medical facility under any circumstances because I do not believe that this language is in the best interests of veterans.

The GAO has reported that, historically, the VA has spent as many as 1 in 4 of its health care dollars on maintaining its facilities and land, including properties that are no longer fit for the provision of medical services and are no longer in use. In order to better capitalize on its assets, the VA has conducted a nationwide review and prepared a plan to make the best use of its property. This plan is supported by a

broad coalition of veterans service organizations, and Congress should take care before carving out exceptions to this policy. This does not mean, however, that just any lease will do. The VA must incorporate the views of local veterans groups whenever it makes decisions about how to utilize its property and any lease must preserve the integrity of the VA grounds.

This bill includes over $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve construction. For too long, the needs of the National Guard and Reserve have not been adequately funded even while their responsibilities at home and abroad have grown exponentially. This bill increases funds for the National Guard and Reserve commensurate with their growing responsibilities.

I am concerned that the Department of Defense, according to the report of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has ``yet to provide a comprehensive plan detailing the scope and cost of the total military construction requirement'' associated with the increase in end strength of the Army and Marine Corps. Nor has the Defense Department properly accounted for the tremendous increase in the cost of realigning its force structure. And I am concerned that the Defense Department is proceeding with major new construction at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti even before the new AFRICOM commander has been confirmed, thereby undermining the stated goal of creating a more cohesive and coordinated approach to security in Africa. As chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to ongoing oversight of the role of our Armed Forces in the overall U.S. strategy towards the African continent.

In conclusion, I am pleased that the Senate voted today to support the needs of members of the Armed Forces, the Reserves, veterans and their families. They have served our Nation selflessly and deserve our enduring support.

Mr. President, illegally traded small arms and light weapons are cheap and readily available in many areas of the world. These weapons contribute to instability and violence in developing regions, creating fertile breeding grounds for rogue actors, undisciplined militias, and even terrorists. Confronting the threat of global terrorism requires a multifaceted approach which should include efforts to curb the illegal small arms trade while promoting programs that destroy surplus and obsolete weapons so they are taken out of circulation world-wide.

The M-16 and the AK-47, both automatic rifles, and shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles, called Man-Portable Air Defense Systems, or MANPADS, are the most commonly traded weapons in the estimated $1 billion a year illegal arms trade. I am not talking about legal and vetted government to government transfers; I am talking about the illicit arms trade that results in these weapons ending up, frequently, in the most lawless regions of the world and in places where they could be used to attack U.S. troops.

I have just returned from a trip to Africa, where I saw firsthand the devastating toll these weapons have had in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, as well as in northern Uganda. The eastern part of DRC, despite that country's successful election last summer, is rife with instability and small arms are the weapons of choice. I saw how they are used to destabilize communities and how they wreak havoc on innocent civilians. I visited a center for ex-combatants in Bunia, in the Ituri region of North Kivu, and saw the newly disarmed soldiers beginning the process of ``re-entering'' life without a weapon. The U.N. agency running this program had already removed the child soldiers but many of the former soldiers I saw looked exceedingly young. They couldn't have been much older than 18 or 20 and yet there they were receiving a second chance at life--a chance to live free of violence.

In Iraq, the illicit small arms trade supplies insurgent groups that continue to hamper U.S.-led efforts to stabilize and rebuild the country. In Afghanistan, illegally obtained small arms are used by warlords to attack U.S. troops and maintain areas of refuge for terrorists. Much of the recent violence that has plunged Somalia into chaos has been carried out by extremists with automatic rifles. In Colombia, narcoterrorist paramilitary operations, including kidnappings and the murder of hostages, are fueled by a steady flow of small arms that are smuggled into the country. The influx of small arms into Darfur, much of which is in violation of a U.N. arms embargo, has helped perpetuate the conflict between the Sudanese government, associated Janjaweed militias, and the numerous rebel factions. Many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa--including Angola, and Liberia-- have been profoundly impacted as they became victims to decades of brutal war perpetuated by these illegal arms flows.

I am pleased that the President requested, the House passed, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has provided, over $44 million for the Small Arms and Light Weapons Destruction Program in Fiscal Year 2008. This is a significant increase for a much-needed and very successful initiative. Indeed, since 2001, this program has helped 25 countries destroy over 1 million weapons that might have otherwise have been used to create unrest and chaos.

The fight against global terrorism remains the highest national security priority of the United States. The illegal global trade and ensuing use of small arms and light weapons clearly destabilizes regions that extremists and terrorists can then use as safe havens in which to operate. The United States must do all it can to curtail the illegal small arms trade world-wide while it works to simultaneously eliminate the conditions that breed extremism and instability. The Small Arms and Light Weapons Destruction Program is a critical component in that fight.