[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 52 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3735-S3742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 
                                  2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1591, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1591) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 641

         (Purpose: An amendment in the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 641.

  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, today we take up a supplemental bill to 
fund our troops in the field, to send a strong message about the 
direction of the war in Iraq, to improve the veterans and defense 
health care system, to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina rebuild, 
to secure the homeland, and to provide emergency relief to farmers 
impacted by major drought and freezes. We are now in the fifth year--
the fifth year--of the war, this terrible war.
  I was against it. I voted against it. We are there. We are now in the 
fifth year of the war in Iraq. The debate about the war has 
deteriorated into a series of buzz words--preemptive war, mission 
accomplished, exaggerated intelligence, inadequate body armor, and 
surges--and on and on. Our job in the Senate is not to look backward 
but to look forward.
  The Constitution clearly gives the Congress the power--yes, it does; 
it clearly gives the Congress, us, the power--to decide when this 
Nation should go to war, and it gives Congress the power of the purse, 
money. Money talks. Funding such conflicts is the responsibility of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
The buck stops here, and don't you ever forget it, the

[[Page S3736]]

Senate Appropriations Committee. Because of that power over the purse, 
it is certainly our duty to debate the future of the war in Iraq.
  The bill before the Senate includes a provision that would give the 
war a new direction, and it points the way out--out, out--of the civil 
war in Iraq. There is no restriction on funding for the troops--no 
restriction on funding for the troops. We fully fund the needs of the 
troops. We do that, yes. In fact, the bill provides more funds than the 
President requested for the Department of Defense, with an increase of 
$1.3 billion for the defense health care system, $1 billion for 
equipping the Guard and Reserve, and $1.1 billion for military housing.
  The language in the bill narrows the mission of our troops in Iraq, 
keeps pressure on the Iraqi Government to meet benchmarks on national 
reconciliation, requires the President--yes, hear me now; requires the 
President--to send Congress a phased redeployment plan. It sets a goal 
for the redeployment of most of the U.S. troops from Iraq by March 31, 
2008.
  This country was not attacked by Iraq on 9/11. There was not a single 
Iraqi, not one, involved in the devastation in New York, Washington, 
and Pennsylvania on that fateful day. According to our own Government, 
the perpetrators of 9/11, Osama bin Laden and his organization, are 
alive today and rebuilding in Afghanistan and Pakistan at this moment, 
as I speak, so help me God. Language in this bill would allow the 
President to refocus our military and our intelligence on the 
terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.
  During the debate on this bill, assertions will be made, yes, that it 
is inappropriate to add to this bill funding to meet domestic needs. In 
fact, the White House has claimed that efforts to add funding for our 
veterans, for Katrina victims, and for homeland security will hold 
hostage the funds for the troops. What nonsense--hear me--nonsense. 
Just more buzzwords.
  In fact, funding for the war is not the only critical need worthy of 
supplemental funding this year. The war must not obliterate every other 
concern. Last week, the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, Rob Portman, said the President would veto the bill if the Iraq 
language and additional spending remain in the bill. He said:

       We're disappointed the Senate is allowing politics--

  humbug--

     to interfere with getting needed resources to our troops.

  Politics? Politics? I ask the Senate, is it politics to ensure that 
the VA has a health care system that can provide first-rate care for 
the wounded? Is it? No. It is a moral imperative--yes, a moral 
imperative.
  Is it politics to provide critical resources to help the gulf region 
rebuild after Hurricane Katrina? Is it? Is it politics? No, it is not 
politics. It is compassion--compassion.
  Is it politics to help rural America recover from drought and freeze? 
Is it? No. It is common sense, do you hear me, common sense and good 
economics.
  This bill meets some of the most urgent needs of our country. It 
includes $1.7 billion to ensure that the VA has the resources it needs 
to help the brave men and women wounded in the war. The VA needs 
resources in order to provide first-rate care to profoundly wounded, 
terribly wounded, horribly wounded soldiers. We are morally bound--hear 
me; yes, we are morally bound, aren't we, to care for our wounded 
troops. This is not politics. No. Shame. This is not politics; it is 
common decency.
  This bill also includes $3.3 billion above the administration's 
request for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The 
President proposes to pay for the increased costs of repairing the 
existing levees in Louisiana by cutting the funding that Congress 
provided to improve the capacity of the levees to protect New Orleans 
from future hurricanes. Shame. That makes no sense.
  The bill provides new resources to repair the levees. We will not 
follow a nonsensical strategy of repairing the existing levee system 
that failed during Katrina by cutting funding already appropriated for 
actual improvements to the levee system. We will not. We also include 
funding for health and education, for law enforcement, and for transit 
systems in the gulf region to help rebuild, to bring people back to 
work, and to bring the region back to life. Not politics, just plain 
old common sense.
  The bill includes $4.2 billion for agricultural disaster relief. The 
agricultural economy has been hit with drought and freezes. In 2006, 69 
percent of all counties in the United States were declared primary or 
contiguous disaster areas. Fourteen States had 100 percent of their 
counties declared disaster areas by the Department of Agriculture.
  I commend Senator Dorgan and Senator Feinstein and Senator Bond for 
their hard work on this disaster package.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from 
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requesting agricultural 
disaster assistance be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 February 8, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Byrd, Senator McConnell 
     and Senator Cochran: As you prepare to begin work on the 
     Emergency Supplemental to fund vital government programs, I 
     implore you to include the Emergency Farm Assistance Act of 
     2007. The Farm Assistance Act provides much needed relief to 
     California's multi-billion dollar agricultural industry, 
     which has suffered devastating losses due to the recent 
     record setting freeze, as well as the extreme heat wave in 
     2006 and flooding in 2005.
       As you know, on January 11, 2007, an arctic air mass moved 
     into the state and extreme cold air conditions pushed 
     nighttime temperatures to record and near record lows 
     throughout the state for the next 8-10 days. These extreme 
     weather conditions had a devastating impact on California's 
     agricultural industry, exacting catastrophic losses on our 
     citrus, avocado, vegetable and strawberry crops. Agriculture 
     plays a central role in our local economies, and as a result 
     of the freeze, many farm communities and related businesses 
     have suffered massive losses. To provide immediate relief, I 
     directed state agencies to make state facilities available to 
     local agencies for use as warming centers. We also contacted 
     agricultural associations to ensure that growers were aware 
     of cold weather, so that appropriate protective actions could 
     be taken.
       In response to these dire events, I directed the execution 
     of the State Emergency Plan. In accordance with Section 401 
     of the Stafford Act, on January 12, 2007, I proclaimed a 
     state of emergency for all 58 California counties. I also 
     issued additional proclamations to specifically address the 
     impacts of the freeze on the agricultural industry, small 
     businesses and individuals in an effort to expedite federal 
     assistance to the counties that were hardest hit. I have 
     since requested that the President declare a major disaster 
     for 31 California counties.
       In spite of these significant efforts to protect crops, 
     agricultural communities in California have sustained 
     substantial crop losses and unknown long-term tree damage in 
     excess of $1.14 billion. With the loss of a major portion of 
     our agricultural crop, thousands of farmworkers and their 
     families in impacted counties have been displaced due to job 
     loss and loss of income. Despite the assistance farmers and 
     ranchers are now receiving through the United States 
     Department of Agriculture and the Small Business 
     Administration, more aid is needed. It is clear that the full 
     impact of this disaster wi11 be ongoing and systemic.
       The California Delegation has played a critical role in the 
     development of the Farm Assistance Act. I applaud their 
     bipartisan work to provide crucial assistance to our farmers 
     and ranchers in need. To that end, I strongly support the 
     Farm Assistance Act and its inclusion in the Emergency 
     Supplemental. The unfolding crisis in our agricultural 
     communities requires swift assistance and attention. 
     California agriculture literally feeds the nation, and I urge 
     you to include the Emergency Farm Assistance Act of 2007 as 
     part of the Emergency Supplemental.
       Thank you for your consideration of this important request.
           Sincerely,
                                            Arnold Schwarzenegger.


[[Page S3737]]


  Mr. BYRD. Providing agricultural disaster relief is not politics, no. 
It is good policy.
  The bill that is before the Senate also includes $2 billion for 
securing the homeland. In the State of the Union, the President said:

       The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at 
     work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is 
     still a nation at war.

  Despite hundreds of innocent people being killed in train bombings in 
London, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo, and Mombai, India, and despite the 
aviation sector remaining at a high terrorist threat level since 
August, the President did not request one extra dime--not one thin 
dime--in the supplemental for securing the homeland. This bill includes 
funding for purchasing explosive detection systems for our airports, 
for grants to help secure our rail and transit systems, and for 
securing our ports and borders. The money is needed now.
  For 5\1/2\ years, since the attack on 9/11, this administration has 
raised fears of another terrorist attack. The administration has 
announced a high, or orange, threat level for possible terrorist 
attacks on eight different occasions. In every State of the Union 
Address, the President has stoked the fires of fear. Periodically, the 
Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the FBI 
Director helped to fan those flames. Yet the President consistently 
sends to Congress budgets for homeland security that do not reflect 
this perceived threat. Rather than spreading fear, the administration 
should be reducing vulnerabilities by doing everything it can to deter 
another attack. Providing funding to secure the homeland is not 
politics; it is an essential duty.
  The President's ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' approach to funding 
domestic agencies has real and demonstrably severe consequences. The 
failed response to Hurricane Katrina proved that. The inability to 
provide first-class health care to our wounded veterans proved that. 
But we never learn.
  Another important aspect of this bill is in the oversight and 
accountability that it mandates. For far too long--far too long--
oversight has been a lost cause, yes, around this Congress. Tough 
questions are ditched in favor of softballs. Honest answers are buried 
in political spin. This legislation says ``no more.'' Real oversight is 
back, and it will not be denied. This legislation makes major 
investments in inspectors general, from the Special Inspector General 
for Iraq Reconstruction to inspectors general for the Department of 
State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice. Let's 
hope we can begin to get the waste, fraud, and abuse in Government 
under control. The legislation presses forward with GAO audits of the 
use of these dollars as we try to put an end to the contractors' 
bonanza of big dollars free from the prying eyes of Congress or the 
public. Insisting that U.S. tax dollars are wisely spent is not 
politics. What is it? It is our duty. Hear me. It is our duty.

  The Appropriations Committee has made careful choices. The White 
House assertion that spending in this bill is excessive or extraneous 
or political--humbug. It simply has no foundation. The committee has 
chosen to provide first-rate care to the war wounded, to provide 
resources to help the gulf region rebuild after Katrina, to improve 
homeland security, and to provide agricultural disaster assistance. 
This is a good bill. I urge prompt action on this legislation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this appropriations bill reported by 
our Committee on Appropriations responds to the President's request for 
supplemental funding for the Department of Defense and other 
departments and agencies. The bill provides $121.6 billion in emergency 
spending. Of this amount, $102.48 billion is provided to support Iraqi 
security forces to continue operations in Afghanistan and to wage the 
global war on terrorism. In testimony before our Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense, we were told this funding is needed by the end 
of April.
  I am disappointed the bill contains language that sets forth a 
timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The language amounts 
to a restatement of S.J. Res. 9, which a majority of Senators voted 
against, 50 to 48, on March 15. The Senate has spoken on this issue. 
Inclusion of this language as reported by the Appropriations Committee 
last week will only slow down the bill and invite a Presidential veto. 
We need to approve the funding now. Unnecessarily extending this debate 
is not going to serve the national interests. I will offer an amendment 
to strike this language from the bill.
  In this bill, the Appropriations Committee also approved $14.8 
billion for additional emergencies, including $7.9 billion for 
continuing the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. The affected States are 
making good progress, slow but steady and sure. But additional Federal 
resources are needed. The bill also includes $1.7 billion for veterans 
health care facilities, which signals the committee's continuing 
interest in ensuring that our veterans receive the quality care they 
deserve.
  I applaud the chairman's goal, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, of completing work on the bill this week. I am concerned, 
however, that the bill is almost $19 billion above the President's 
request. We need to be sure this spending is necessary and responsible. 
I look forward to working with my good friend from West Virginia to 
ensure that this is the case. It is imperative that we provide funding 
to our troops promptly, and it will remain my goal to put a bill on the 
President's desk that he can sign.


                 Amendment No. 643 to Amendment No. 641

  Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself, 
     Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Graham, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
     Stevens, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr. Allard, 
     Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 643 
     to amendment No. 641.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:


                           amendment no. 643

(Purpose: To strike language that would tie the hands of the Commander-
in-Chief by imposing an arbitrary timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. 
 forces from Iraq, thereby undermining the position of American Armed 
 Forces and jeopardizing the successful conclusion of Operation Iraqi 
                                Freedom)

       On page 24, strike line 16 and all that follows through 
     page 26, line 24 and insert:

     ``SEC. 1315. BENCHMARKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ.--''

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this is an amendment to the committee 
substitute which is now at the desk. The amendment will strike part of 
section 1315 of the bill titled ``Revision of United States Policy on 
Iraq.'' The majority of section 1315 of this act is a restatement of 
S.J. Res. 9, the United States Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007.
  Two weeks ago, the Senate voted against adopting S.J. Res. 9 by a 
vote of 50 to 48. Section 1315 calls for a prompt transition of the 
mission in Iraq to a limited mission; a phased redeployment of U.S. 
forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this act; a goal of 
redeployment of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008, 
except for a limited number essential for protecting U.S. and coalition 
personnel and infrastructure, training, and equipping Iraqi forces, and 
conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.
  Section 1315 also calls for a classified campaign plan for Iraq, 
including benchmarks and projected redeployment dates of U.S. forces 
from Iraq. Finally, it also includes an expression of the sense of 
Congress concerning benchmarks for the Government of Iraq, along with a 
reporting requirement by the commander, multinational forces, Iraq, 
which is currently General Petraeus, to detail the progress being made 
by the Iraqi Government on the benchmarks contained in this section.
  This amendment does not remove the sense-of-the-Congress provision 
that is important to a number of Senators. I think all Senators share 
an earnest desire that the Iraqi Government move aggressively to 
undertake the measures necessary to ensure a stable and

[[Page S3738]]

free Iraq. The language to be removed by my amendment is essentially a 
restatement of S.J. Res. 9, which, as I said, on March 15 Senators 
defeated by a vote of 50 to 48.
  Before announcing his new plan in Iraq, the President sought input 
from his top military and civilian advisers, along with Members of 
Congress, foreign leaders, and other military and foreign policy 
experts. He acknowledged there was no easy solution to the situation in 
Iraq and the Middle East, and he determined a temporary deployment of 
additional U.S. troops in Iraq to support Iraqi security forces would 
provide a new window of opportunity for Iraqi political and economic 
initiatives to take hold and reduce sectarian violence. This plan 
provides the best hope to bring stability to the country and to hasten 
the day when our troops will come home.
  Earlier this year the National Intelligence Estimate entitled 
``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead,'' was 
delivered to the Congress. The National Intelligence Estimate 
indicated--and I am quoting now from an unclassified version:

       Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, 
     and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in 
     Iraq. If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the 
     term of this Estimate--

  Which is 12 to 18 months--

     we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a 
     significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian 
     conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi 
     government, and have adverse consequences for national 
     reconciliation.
       If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge 
     that the Iraqi security forces would be unlikely to survive 
     as a nonsectarian national institution; neighboring 
     countries--invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally--might 
     intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties 
     and forced population displacement would be probable; Al-
     Qaida in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country--
     particularly al Anbar province--to plan increased attacks in 
     and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political 
     disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk 
     and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a 
     military incursion.

  It is clear to me that it is in our national interests to support the 
President's new strategy, to help provide an opportunity for political 
and economic solutions in Iraq, and for more effective diplomatic 
efforts in the Middle East region. Of course, we know there are no 
guarantees of success, but according to the National Intelligence 
Estimate and the perspective of some of our most experienced foreign 
policy experts, maintaining the current course or withdrawal without 
additional stability in Iraq will be harmful to our national interests 
and to the entire region.
  We need to do what we can to help stabilize this situation and bring 
our troops home. As a beginning point, for this strategy to work, we 
should show a commitment to success. I support the new initiative and 
urge the Senate to give it a chance to work. This does not mean we 
should not monitor the situation or that the plan should not be 
adjusted as new developments occur, but we need to let the forces move 
forward to brighten the prospects of stabilizing Iraq and bringing our 
troops home.
  As Commander in Chief, the President needs our support. I support his 
efforts and the efforts of our troops. The Senate should provide the 
resources necessary to accomplish this mission, and these funds are 
included in this bill. Troop levels and missions need to be left to 
General Petraeus and his commanders who ought to have the flexibility 
to react to the situation on the ground in determining how to deploy 
troops as needed. Congress should not be tying the hands of our 
commanders or limiting their flexibility to respond to the threats on 
the battlefield.
  The inclusion of unnecessarily restrictive language will ensure a 
Presidential veto, we are advised. In testimony before the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, we were told that the funding 
provided by this bill is needed by the end of April. We need to speed 
this funding to our troops, rather than slow it down by returning to a 
debate already settled by the Senate by a recorded vote.
  Madam President, I urge the support of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I expect that a number of Senators will 
want to debate the Iraq amendment tomorrow. I look forward to a good 
debate on this matter.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wish to speak to the amendment that was 
laid down by Senator Cochran from Mississippi, an amendment to strike 
language from the bill that is pending before us, language that would 
inhibit the ability of our commanders on the ground to carry out the 
message we have asked them to perform in Iraq.
  As we are all aware, this security supplemental is designed to 
provide money for the conduct of our operations in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. There is a timetable here. The commanders have said they need, by 
April 15, the beginning part of this funding so they can carry out the 
missions we have asked them to perform. When I was there about a month 
ago, this message was given to me over and over when I would say: Is 
there anything I can do for you: Senator make sure we get the funding 
without the strings attached when we need that money.
  So the President requested this security supplemental appropriations 
bill. The House has acted. The Senate has the bill before us this week. 
Madam President, this funding bill will do no good if it has 
limitations imposed in it that prevent us from carrying out the 
mission, and the President has already said if language that sets a 
timetable for the withdrawal of our troops is included, he will be 
forced to veto the bill. We understand that.
  It makes no sense to me that we would go ahead and pass such a bill, 
knowing the President will veto it, because there would be no way for 
us to go back and redo it all before the April 15 time, when the troops 
begin to need this money. Many have suggested that this is actually a 
slow-bleed strategy on the part of some to put a poison pill in the 
bill, forcing the President to veto it, knowing it means the troops 
would not get the money they need when they need it. I would rather 
like to think that this is a genuine point of view on the part of some 
of my colleagues who believe we should put strings attached on this 
funding and somehow that will provide a more clear way for us to 
achieve our mission. I don't understand it, but I suspect somebody 
could argue that.
  What I would like to do is support Senator Cochran's amendment to 
simply strike this language from the bill. If the President is able to 
continue to carry out the Petraeus plan and we have funding to do that, 
we will know soon enough whether it will enable us to achieve the 
mission. By the summertime or thereabouts, if it appears this surge is 
not working, then we will know that as well.
  What I cannot understand is why anybody would want to pull the rug 
out from under the troops just at the time it appears the President's 
strategy is beginning to work. When I was there, there was already 
cautious optimism, signs of success of the plan--nobody wants to 
declare success or victory, of course, but that those elements of 
success continue to be manifested and be reported on.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at the 
conclusion of my remarks, a piece by William Kristol and Frederick 
Kagan from the Weekly Standard of April 2, 2007, entitled ``Wrong on 
Timetables.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, this piece by William Kristol and Frederick 
Kagan tries to take the arguments that have been offered by the 
opposition in favor of a timetable and demonstrate why those arguments 
are incorrect. The first of the arguments is that the Iraqi Government 
needs stimulus by us, or a threat by us, that if they don't hurry up 
and do what they are supposed to do, we are going to pull out. This 
kind of strings attached, therefore, makes some sense. They point out

[[Page S3739]]

the fact that, first of all, the resolution itself that was defeated in 
this body a week or so ago by a vote of 48 to 50, that resolution, 
which would have established timetables, was defeated, among other 
things, because the Iraqis have already gotten the message.
  It is not so much about sending a message to them as it is about 
sending a message to our enemies and to our allies and to our own 
troops, which says regardless of what you do, we are going to be out by 
a certain date. The problem with the goals and with the specifics that 
are supposed to be achieved, the benchmarks, so-called, in the 
legislation is that it matters not how well the Iraqi Government 
performs; we are still going to be out by a date certain. So it is not 
the kind of message we want to send to the Iraqi Government and, 
clearly, not the kind we want to send to our enemies who simply know 
they have to just wait us out.
  Another argument is that American forces would be able to fight al-
Qaida, and we don't need to be involved in the civil war of the Iraqis. 
It would take a lawyer to figure that out. You are going to have to 
have a lawyer with every squad on patrol to figure out whether they are 
fighting al-Qaida or somebody else or what kind of action can be taken. 
It is very hard to distinguish whom you are fighting when the fighting 
is going on. Al-Qaida is definitely a problem. What did al-Qaida do? 
They went over to bomb the Golden Mosque in Samarra, which got the 
Shiites to decide they had to provide protection with militias, which 
went over and attacked the Sunnis, who then went over and attacked the 
Shiites and achieved the objective that al-Qaida wanted: to foment 
violence among different factions within the country.
  Where do you draw the line against fighting al-Qaida and someone else 
if someone else is doing al-Qaida's bidding? It is a very convoluted 
proposition. Clearly, you cannot have troops there to fight one 
specific enemy but not another, especially when they are so difficult 
to identify.
  Finally, some think it is too late, that we have already lost, and we 
might as well figure out a way to get out. I haven't heard my 
colleagues talk that way because, under that scenario, you ought to cut 
off funding today and not wait for the 6 or 8 or 10 months called for 
under the resolution. As I said, the Senate defeated the virtually 
identical provision 2 weeks ago. One of the reasons is because our 
military is making progress. It is finding that, for example, in Sadr 
City, the mayor of Sadr City essentially invited the Iraqi and 
coalition forces in without a shot being fired. The forces of Moqtada 
al-Sadr have either gone underground or disbanded. Al-Sadr himself is 
believed to have gone to Iran. Prime Minister Maliki has made it clear 
he is not going to relent against the forces of the Sadr army. He has 
fired the Deputy Health Minister, one of Sadr's allies. He has turned a 
deaf ear to the complaints of al-Sadr. He oversaw the cleaning out of 
the Interior Ministry, which was a stronghold that was corrupting the 
Iraqi police. He has worked with other coalition leaders to deploy the 
Iraqi units pursuant to the Baghdad security plan. Interestingly, he 
has also visited the sheik in Ramadi, which is the capital of Anbar 
Province and formally the real base of al-Qaida operations, and has 
gotten cooperation with the tribal leaders in that area to join us in 
the effort against al-Qaida and other insurgents.

  All of this is demonstrating cooperation of the Government in 
Baghdad, clearly refuting the notion that somehow the American policy 
has to be to threaten the Iraqis to cooperate with us or else we will 
leave and the only way to do that is by expressing that through a 
timetable. Clearly, the Iraqi Government is cooperating, and setting 
arbitrary deadlines would send exactly the wrong message both to our 
allies and, of course, to our enemies.
  We need to express the view to our allies that we will be there to 
protect them when the going gets tough. The enemy is not simply going 
to lie down and allow this plan to continue to work. They will fight 
back. As somebody said, there are going to be good days and bad days, 
but our allies need to know that we will be there in the bad days and 
that we won't set an absolute deadline for getting out.
  The other point I made earlier is the services need this supplemental 
appropriations bill, and that is why it is necessary for us to strike 
provisions of section 1315, provisions which would deny that funding 
without the strings that are attached.
  To this point, I also alluded to the fact that section 1315 is 
internally contradictory and self-defeating. As I said, it provides 
benchmarks for the Iraqi leaders to meet and then says it doesn't 
matter whether they meet them, we are out of here. The resolution would 
not send any message that is constructive in any way and certainly is 
not changing the behavior of the administration.
  There are some who might believe they could support section 1315 
because it is less restrictive than the House language. Indeed, it is 
somewhat less restrictive, although essentially a distinction without a 
difference.
  This bill has to go to conference. There has been a great deal of 
discussion by pundits and others that the more liberal element in the 
House of Representatives is going to insist upon, at a bare minimum, 
the language that passed the House of Representatives which they felt 
was too moderate to begin with. We are likely to get change in a 
conference that is language the President will have to veto, language 
which is closer to the House language than the Senate language. I 
think, therefore, Senators should not be acting under the illusion that 
we can go ahead and pass this language and make sure that either in 
conference everything gets taken out or at least this language, rather 
than the more difficult House language, will be what is sent to the 
President.
  The reality is these are real bullets. This is not something with 
which to play around. I don't think we can be voting for something just 
because maybe in the conference committee we can try to make it a 
little bit better.
  Madam President, I wish to get to this point that will, perhaps, put 
this in perspective. I can't remember another time in history when the 
United States in the middle of a war has set a deadline and basically 
told the world: We will be out by this specific date. To state the 
proposition is to illustrate how odd and destructive a proposition it 
is. If someone can come to the floor and tell me when this has been 
done in the past and when it has had a salutary effect on the conflict, 
I would be very interested and would certainly be willing to listen to 
how that might have a positive effect here. But even colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle several months ago expressed themselves on the 
matter of timetables and deadlines, and they know who they are; they 
acknowledge this is not the way to fight a war. One thing you cannot do 
is tell the enemy when you are going to be leaving because it simply 
allows the enemy to wait you out. Nothing has changed. That fact still 
remains, and it seems almost inconceivable to me that Members now would 
be deciding it is now OK to set a deadline and to set timetables.
  Some might argue that it is just a goal, it is not a timetable. But 
the reality is there are both embodied in this section which we seek to 
strike. The beginning phrase is, ``The President shall commence the 
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 
120 days after the date of enactment of the act.'' That is not a 
``maybe,'' it is not an ``if everything goes well'' or ``if everything 
doesn't go well,'' it is a ``shall commence'' redeployment. The goal is 
``with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008,'' but the ``shall 
commence'' is pursuant to that goal. So you have to start it, and then 
you keep going, and your goal is to get it done by March 31, 2008. The 
only exception is for the limited purposes of leaving troops behind to 
protect our infrastructure and coalition personnel, training and 
equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism 
operations.
  How do you decide how many troops you need to leave behind to conduct 
targeted counterterrorism operations when virtually everything we are 
doing in Iraq right now is counterterrorism? How do you decide we are 
going to be able to cut, say, in half the number of troops and still be 
able to effectively conduct targeted counterterrorism operations? If 
you are driving down a street to conduct a targeted counterterrorism 
operation and somebody begins firing on you, do you have to ask them 
whether they are a terrorist before you can return fire? Do you turn

[[Page S3740]]

to your lawyer sitting in the humvee with you: I want to comply with 
the law, so can I shoot back or not?
  This is ludicrous. We cannot impose these kinds of conditions on our 
troops in the middle of combat and expect them to perform their mission 
safely. We send the best trained and best equipped troops into harm's 
way, and we need to give them the other tool they need to prevail; that 
is, the ability to carry out their mission as their commanders have 
defined it for them, not as it is micromanaged by a bunch of lawyers in 
Washington or Members of the Congress.
  So, No. 1, this isn't just a wish that we redeploy. It begins ``shall 
commence the phased redeployment not later than 120 days after the date 
of enactment of this act,'' and the goal is to have it all done by 
March 31 of next year. That is so destructive in the middle of war that 
I just can't believe my colleagues would actually contemplate doing 
that or that they can believe putting these kinds of limitations on our 
troops is a realistic way to fight a war--conducting targeted 
counterterrorism operations but not returning fire against, what, 
against somebody defined as an insurgent, maybe? I don't understand it, 
and I don't know how many lawyers it is going to take to understand it. 
Our troops on the ground who are in the middle of a conflict certainly 
are not going to be able to fight and defend themselves under 
restrictions such as these, which is, I gather, precisely why the 
President says he will have to veto it.

  That gets me to my last point. I can understand why, Madam President, 
if you felt this was a lost cause, you would want to just say: Let's 
have a vote to get out and be done with it and not fund the troops. But 
instead, there are some--and I am not suggesting in the Congress but 
there are some who have talked about this as a very clever strategy. 
They say the opponents of the President and the Congress are going to 
be able to say they voted to support the troops because they voted for 
a supplemental appropriations bill for that purpose, knowing all along, 
however, that it is a false exercise because it puts restrictions on 
the troops fighting the war that they can't possibly live with, so the 
President has to veto it. But he will get the blame, not them.
  Well, that is too clever by half. The American people understand 
this. I urge, if any of my colleagues are considering supporting this 
for that reason, that they fail to appreciate that the American people, 
yes, would like to bring our troops home, they would like to see this 
conflict ended, but, no, they do not want it to end with an American 
defeat. They do not want to see us defeated and, most especially, I 
can't imagine anybody who wants to have our troops continue the war for 
a limited duration of time under rules which put them in great danger, 
which is what this would do. So the President has to veto it.
  What happens when he vetoes the bill, if this is the form in which we 
pass it? We are now beyond April 15, the time the troops need the 
money, and yet Congress has still not acted to provide the security 
supplemental funding. The Defense Department now has to terminate 
contracts so they can switch money from this account over to this 
account and begin a very costly and time-consuming process of trying to 
make do while Congress makes up its mind, to make sure they can get the 
money to the troops so they can continue their operations.
  Maybe secretly there are some out there who hope all of this will 
gradually reduce the ability of the troops to perform their mission so 
that it becomes a proposition where our strategy, even under the best 
of circumstances, can't succeed. In other words, the Petraeus plan 
fails because we couldn't get the support to the troops when they 
needed the support.
  I hope that certainly my colleagues in the House and Senate will not 
buy into that proposition, will not pull the rug out from under our 
troops just when it appears this plan is showing signs of success. That 
slow-bleed strategy would not only ensure that we would lose everything 
we have gained so far, including the prospect of a success, but that 
our troops would be put in more danger now than they would be either by 
supporting them or simply by leaving. It would leave them in a middle 
ground, in the middle of a fire but without the ability to properly 
defend themselves.
  Maybe some believe that would force our hand and just bring them home 
anyway, acknowledge defeat, and be done with it. I don't think that is 
what the American people want. If anybody is thinking that is the 
strategy behind this proposition, I think they are not only misreading 
American public opinion but do not have the best interests of our 
troops in mind.
  Since that is the rationale behind this resolution, as offered by my 
colleagues, I am sure that is not the case. But that is why we need to 
strike this particular section from the bill.
  We will talk later about some other items that need to be stricken as 
well. It is amazing to me, and I won't get into all the pork that is in 
this bill, but here we have a security supplemental, emergency funding 
to support the troops, and we decide to lard it up with all manner of 
items that are not emergencies, have nothing to do with supporting the 
troops, but because everybody knows this is a must-pass bill, they 
figure this is a real good opportunity for them to get things in the 
bill that might otherwise be very difficult to pass in the Congress.
  Just a couple ideas: $3.5 million related to guided tours of the U.S. 
Capitol. I am all for guided tours of the U.S. Capitol, but is this an 
emergency?
  There is $13 million for mine safety research. I am sure mine safety 
is important to research. Is this an emergency which can't be put in a 
regular appropriations bill?
  We are targeting funding for sugar beets. I presume I like sugar 
beets--I am not sure--but I don't think it is an emergency for which we 
need to spend $24 million.
  There is another $3 million funding for sugarcane, which I understand 
goes to one Hawaiian cooperative.
  Here is something which would appeal to all the politicians: $100 
million for security related to the Republican and Democratic 
Presidential nominating conventions. Is that next month, Madam 
President? I have forgotten. Nominating conventions would be in July 
and August, not of this year but the following year--not exactly an 
emergency we need to fund in an emergency security supplemental to 
conduct this war.
  Do my colleagues hear what I am saying? Politicians have decided this 
is a good train to get on board because it has to move, we have to fund 
the troops. Since it is hard for us to get the Senate and the House to 
act on these items otherwise, we will just try to attach them to this 
bill.
  We will have other amendments to try to remove these extraneous 
matters from this funding bill. But what I wanted to talk about today 
was primarily my concern that if we don't strike this section which has 
the timetables for withdrawal, then one of two things is going to 
happen: Either the President vetoes the bill and it then takes us 
forever to get a clean bill to the President, with the result that the 
troops don't have the funding they need and the strategy that is 
currently working becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who say 
it can't work because they have denied the funds for it to work, or 
these provisions remain and, of course, it is impossible to conduct 
operations with these strings attached for our troops. Either way, it 
is a heck of a way to fight a war. And it illustrates to me that we 
ought not try to micromanage this conflict from the Halls of Congress. 
We have plenty of other things that should occupy our time than 
developing a strategy and the rules of engagement for fighting a war 
when we have perfectly good people, such as General Petraeus who was 
unanimously confirmed by this body, to develop a plan and see to it 
that it is properly executed. We have sent him over to do it. I suggest 
we give him and his troops the support they need to get the job done.

  I would support the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi to 
strike this section from the bill.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                [From the Weekly Standard, Apr. 2, 2007]

                          Wrong on Timetables

              (By William Kristol and Frederick W. Kagan)

       Let's give congressional Democrats the benefit of the 
     doubt: Assume some of them earnestly think they're doing the 
     right thing to insist on adding to the supplemental 
     appropriation for the Iraq war benchmarks and

[[Page S3741]]

     timetables for withdrawal. Still, their own arguments--taken 
     at face value--don't hold up.
       Democrats in Congress have made three superficially 
     plausible claims: (1) Benchmarks and timetables will 
     ``incentivize'' the Maliki government to take necessary steps 
     it would prefer to avoid. (2) We can gradually withdraw over 
     the next year so as to step out of sectarian conflict in Iraq 
     while still remaining to fight al Qaeda. (3) Defeat in Iraq 
     is inevitable, so our primary goal really has to be to get 
     out of there. But the situation in Iraq is moving rapidly 
     away from the assumptions underlying these propositions, and 
     their falseness is easier to show with each passing day.
       (1) The Iraqi government will not act responsibly unless 
     the imminent departure of American forces compels it to do 
     so. Those who sincerely believe this argument were horrified 
     by the president's decision in January to increase the 
     American military presence in Iraq. It has now been more than 
     ten weeks since that announcement--long enough to judge 
     whether the Maliki government is more or less likely to 
     behave well when U.S. support seems robust and reliable.
       In fact, since January 11, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki 
     has permitted U.S. forces to sweep the major Shiite 
     strongholds in Baghdad, including Sadr City, which he had 
     ordered American troops away from during operations in 2006. 
     He has allowed U.S. forces to capture and kill senior leaders 
     of Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army--terrifying Sadr into fleeing 
     to Iran. He fired the deputy health minister--one of Sadr's 
     close allies--and turned a deaf ear to Sadr's complaints. He 
     oversaw a clearing-out of the Interior Ministry, a Sadrist 
     stronghold that was corrupting the Iraqi police. He has 
     worked with coalition leaders deploy all of the Iraqi Army 
     units required by the Baghdad Security Plan. In perhaps the 
     most dramatic move of all, Maliki visited Sunni sheikhs in 
     Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province and formerly the base 
     of al Qaeda fighters and other Sunni Arab insurgents against 
     his government. The visit was made possible because Anbar's 
     sheikhs have turned against al Qaeda and are now reaching out 
     to the government they had been fighting. Maliki is reaching 
     back. U.S. strength has given him the confidence to take all 
     these important steps.
       (2) American forces would be able to fight al Qaeda at 
     least as well, if not better, if they were not also engaged 
     in a sectarian civil war in Iraq. The idea of separating the 
     fight against al Qaeda from the sectarian fighting in Iraq is 
     a delusion. Since early 2004, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has 
     sought to plunge Iraq into sectarian civil war, so as to 
     critically weaken the government, which is fighting it. AQI 
     endeavors to clear Shiites out of mixed areas, terrorize 
     local Sunnis into tolerating and supporting AQI, and thereby 
     establish safe havens surrounded by innocent people it then 
     dragoons into the struggle. Now, heartened by the U.S. 
     commitment to stay, Sunni sheikhs in Anbar have turned on 
     AQI. In response, AQI has begun to move toward Baghdad and 
     mixed areas in Diyala, attempting to terrorize the locals and 
     establish new bases in the resulting chaos. The enemy 
     understands that chaos is al Qaeda's friend. The notion that 
     we can pull our troops back into fortresses in a climate of 
     chaos--but still move selectively against al Qaeda--is 
     fanciful. There can be no hope of defeating or controlling al 
     Qaeda in Iraq without controlling the sectarian violence that 
     it spawns and relies upon.
       (3) Isn't it too late? Even if we now have the right 
     strategy and the right general, can we prevail? If there were 
     no hope left, if the Iraqis were determined to wage full-
     scale civil war, if the Maliki government were weak or 
     dominated by violent extremists, if Iran really controlled 
     the Shiites in Iraq--if these things were true, then the new 
     strategy would have borne no fruit at all. Maliki would have 
     resisted or remained limp as before. Sadr's forces would have 
     attacked. Coalition casualties would be up, and so would 
     sectarian killings. But none of these things has happened. 
     Sectarian killings are lower. And despite dramatically 
     increased operations in more exposed settings, so are 
     American casualties. This does not look like hopelessness.
       Hope is not victory, of course. The surge has just begun, 
     our enemies are adapting, and fighting is likely to intensify 
     as U.S. and Iraqi forces begin the main clear-and-hold phase. 
     The Maliki government could falter. But it need not, if we do 
     not. Unfortunately, four years of setbacks have conditioned 
     Americans to believe that any progress must be ephemeral. If 
     the Democrats get their way and Gen. Petraeus is undermined 
     in Congress, the progress may indeed prove short-lived. But 
     it's time to stop thinking so hard about how to lose, and to 
     think instead about how to reinforce and exploit the success 
     we have begun to achieve. The debate in Washington hasn't 
     caught up to the realities in Baghdad. Until it does, a 
     resolute president will need to prevent defeatists in 
     Congress from losing a winnable war in Iraq.

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona 
that the consequences of playing politics with this important funding 
for our troops is simply the wrong strategy; that what we have is a 
game of chicken between the House of Representatives, which is larding 
up a supplemental appropriations bill with a bunch of extraneous pork, 
and the President, recognizing that there are nonsecurity provisions in 
that supplemental appropriations, has said if that and the timetable 
for withdrawal from Iraq is included as part of this emergency 
supplemental, he will veto it. So this is a high-risk game of chicken, 
with the impact of delaying passage of the supplemental being felt 
directly by our troops on the ground, if that is in fact the result.
  Last week, Secretary Gates made clear the consequences of not quickly 
passing the supplemental funding necessary to support our troops. The 
downstream effects will directly impact our soldiers, sailors, marines, 
and airmen. By not moving expeditiously to pass a clean supplemental 
bill that can pass the Senate and be signed by the President, the 
majority risks extending the tours of our troops scheduled to come home 
from Iraq and slowing the repair of equipment necessary to equip them, 
as well as the training of Iraqi soldiers who are designed to replace 
them.
  Any delay in funding will not prevent a buildup of security forces in 
Iraq but, instead, threaten to dramatically impact forces already on 
the ground. Secretary Gates has said this kind of disruption to key 
programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the 
Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families. So I 
can't imagine why in the world our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, the new majority, would want to risk that.
  This supplemental is necessary to pay for training and equipping the 
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If approved, the supplemental will 
pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, repairing and 
replacing equipment damaged or destroyed in combat, and new 
technologies to protect U.S. servicemembers. This last provision 
includes a new generation of body armor, better armored vehicles, and 
countermeasures against improvised explosive devices. IEDs have caused 
about 70 percent of the casualties in Iraq. The supplemental also will 
provide funding for training and equipping the Iraqi and Afghan 
security forces.
  If this supplemental appropriations bill is not passed by April 15, 
the military will be forced to consider the following: curtailing and 
suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units; slowing 
the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan; 
cutting the funding for upgrading and renovating the barracks and other 
facilities that support quality of life for our troops and their 
families; and stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support 
predeployment training. This is what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 
has said on March 22, 2007.
  If the supplemental is not passed by May 15, the military will be 
forced to consider the following: reducing the repair work done at Army 
depots; delaying or curtailing the deployment of brigade combat teams 
to their training rotations. This, in turn, will cause additional units 
in theater to have their tours extended because other units are not 
ready to take their place. Delaying the formation of new brigade combat 
teams; implementation of civilian hiring freeze; prohibiting the 
execution of new contracts and service orders, including service 
contracts for training events and facilities; and, finally, holding or 
canceling the order of repair parts to nondeployed units in the Army.
  All of these, according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, on 
March 22, 2007.
  When the new majority took over Congress, they promised change. In 
fact, the first bill passed in the Senate was an ethics bill that, in 
part, helped improve transparency in the way we spend taxpayers' money 
in Washington. While that ethics bill remains in limbo, the 110th 
Congress has returned to the tried-and-true technique of inserting 
mystery earmarks that have nothing to do with funding our troops or 
fighting the war on terror into a war supplemental bill.
  During the election season, many on the other side called the 109th 
Congress

[[Page S3742]]

the ``do-nothing'' Congress. The 110th Congress is quickly becoming the 
``say anything and do-nothing Congress'' when it comes to fiscal 
discipline. Last week, when the Senate debated the budget, the majority 
spoke of the need for fiscal discipline, even as it passed the $700 
billion tax hike for taxpayers over the next 5 years.
  The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee was quoted as saying:

       We have a responsibility to govern, and you can't govern 
     without a budget.

  But governing takes more than simply passing a budget. Governing also 
includes the discipline to live within a budget.
  Unfortunately, both the Senate and the House failed in their first 
test by including billions more in the war supplemental than the 
President requested. As I mentioned, President Bush has already 
threatened to veto the House bill; not all because of the timetable it 
imposes for our troops' withdrawal from Iraq but also because the bill 
is full of pork.
  In today's edition of the Politico, they did a fine job of 
identifying some of the most egregious examples of pork included in the 
House bill. They highlighted $5 million for tropical fish breeders and 
transporters for losses from a virus last year; $25 million for spinach 
that growers and handlers were unable to market, up to 75 percent of 
their losses; $60.4 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service 
to be distributed among fishing communities, Indian tribes, 
individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, 
and related businesses, and other persons for assistance to mitigate 
the economic and other social effects by a commercial fishery failure.
  It also includes $74 million for the payment of storage, handling, 
and other associated costs for the 2007 crop of peanuts to ensure 
proper storage of peanuts for which a loan is made, and the House bill 
also includes $120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing 
industries to cover consequences of Hurricane Katrina.
  Now, I have to confess, even though I like to fish a little myself, I 
had never even heard of menhaden, so I went on the Internet to 
something called the Menhaden Fact Sheet. This is, if you will recall, 
$120 million for the shrimp and menhaden fishing industries to cover 
consequences of Hurricane Katrina. Well, as it turns out, according to 
the Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the Internet, the menhaden are 
fish of the--well, I can't even pronounce the Latin phrase, but they 
are of the herring family.

  It says here, describing this menhaden that the taxpayer is being 
asked to pay $120 million in this emergency war supplemental: to 
support the gulf menhaden and Atlantic menhaden which are characterized 
by a series of smaller spots behind the main, humeral spot and larger 
scales than yellowfin menhaden and finescale menhaden. In addition, 
yellowfin menhaden tail rays are a bright yellow in contrast to those 
of the Atlantic menhaden, which are grayish. Menhaden range in weight 
up to 1 pound or more. At sea, schools of Atlantic menhaden may contain 
millions of members. Common names for Atlantic menhaden are mossbunkers 
and fatback. In Florida, yellowfin menhaden are called pogies, and are 
the preferred species for use as strip bait.
  This is important. It talks about the range, since this is supposedly 
done as part of the Hurricane Katrina relief measure. It says gulf 
menhaden range from the Yucatan Peninsula to Tampa Bay, FL, with 
finescaled menhaden from the Yucatan to Louisiana--I guess we are 
getting a little closer now to where Hurricane Katrina hit--yellowfin 
menhaden from Louisiana to North Carolina, the Atlantic menhaden ranges 
from Jupiter Inlet, FL, to Nova Scotia. The various species of menhaden 
occur anywhere from estuarine waters outward to the Continental Shelf.
  It says that menhaden are essentially filter feeders, straining 
microscopic plankton, algae, et cetera, from the water they swim 
through open-mouthed. Unlike mullet, they are not bottom feeders. Due 
to their feeding habits, they must be caught by cast netting to be used 
as live bait.
  This is the most interesting part of the article. It says: menhaden 
are not used for human consumption. Most recently, menhaden has begun 
to be exploited as a source of omega-3 fatty acid fish oil for 
commercial human consumption, further threatening menhaden populations.
  I certainly don't know what the purpose is of this $120 million for 
shrimp and the menhaden fishing industries, but I can't see in this 
description, or anywhere else in this legislation, why this is an 
emergency or why it ought to be included in an emergency war 
supplemental. If anything, the inclusion of this kind of appropriation 
in this emergency war supplemental in the House bill trivializes the 
importance of providing the money that will help our troops deployed in 
Afghanistan and Iraq in harm's way.
  Here is what the Senate bill included: $24 million for funding of 
sugar beets; $3 million funding for sugar cane, all of which goes to a 
Hawaiian cooperative; $100 million for dairy product losses; an 
additional $31 million for a 1-month extension of the Milk Income Loss 
Contract Program; 13 million for Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention 
Program; $115 million for the conservation security program; $100 
million for small agricultural dependent businesses; $13 million for 
mine safety technology research; $50 million for fisheries disaster 
mitigation fund.
  There is so much pork included in this supplemental appropriations 
bill, both in the House version and in the Senate proposal, that it 
warranted a front-page story and editorial in USA Today. An editorial 
in USA Today questioned:

       Which is worse: Leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this 
     magnitude, or Members allowing their votes to be bought for 
     peanuts.

  The editorial went on to conclude:

       These provisions demean a bill that, if enacted, would 
     affect the lives of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 
     balance of power in the Middle East and America's long-term 
     security.

  In short, what we have is that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are willing to put money into pet projects--which may or may not 
be worthy endeavors, we will never know--and yet are unwilling to 
adequately fund the needs of our military. For all their talk of 
earmark reform and transparency earlier this year, my colleagues seemed 
to have forgotten all of that when they put together the supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
in morning business for up to 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________