[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 178 (Friday, November 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14578-S14591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 1 hour of debate prior to the cloture vote on the motion to
proceed to S. 2340.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity before us.
With the bill we will consider, we can do what the American people have
asked us to do. We can begin to bring the war in Iraq to a close.
More than 3,800 of our servicemembers have died. In fact, as we know,
2007 has been the deadliest year so far in Iraq. And while we spend
billions of dollars in Iraq, the list of safety, health, and
infrastructure needs at home is stacking up.
Today it is time to begin redeploying our troops, rebuilding our
military, and getting back to fighting the war on terror.
I was one of the 23 Senators who voted against the war in Iraq, and
since then I have voted time and time again to get us out of this war.
That is why I support the bridge funding that is being offered by
Senator Reid this morning that we will consider.
This bill provides $50 billion to make sure our troops have what they
need to do their job and it requires the President to begin redeploying
troops out of Iraq within 30 days after he signs this into law. Our
goal with this legislation is to be out of Iraq by the end of next
year. And importantly, unlike the bill being offered by the other side,
it is not a blank check. It requires American personnel, including the
CIA, to follow Army Field Manual rules on torture, it requires the
military to give our troops at least a year to rest in between tours of
duty, and to ensure that they are battle ready before going into war.
So this morning I urge our colleagues to seize this opportunity and put
American lives, American security, and America's future first and begin
to change direction in Iraq.
Earlier this year, President Bush promised us his troop surge was
going to improve security and allow Iraqis to stabilize their own
country, but that is not working. The Washington Post reported Thursday
that senior military commanders in Iraq are now saying that the
inflexibility of the Shiite government is the key threat facing the
U.S. effort there.
We have given the Iraqi Government every chance to step up and take
control. We have done our part. The Iraqi Government has not done its
part. And in the meantime--while more than 150,000 of our troops are
policing a civil war in Iraq--we have become more vulnerable overseas.
Terrorist attacks have risen almost fivefold since 9/11.
The President has hidden in his bunker and stubbornly refused to
pursue the strategy needed to bring stability in Iraq. It is time for
him to face facts. It is time for the Iraqis to take control of their
own country and for us to redeploy our troops where they are most
needed.
Our bill will allow us to rebuild our military, which is stretched
too thin. Generals have testified to Congress that the war in Iraq has
weakened our military readiness, destroyed our equipment, hurt our
ability to respond to disasters here at home, and left our troops
stressed and without fully rounded training. We need to make sure our
troops are trained for whatever conflict they face, and changing the
direction in Iraq allows us to do that.
We need to fight and win the war on terror and rebuild our military.
We also need to be there to support our servicemembers, our veterans,
and their families. Our veterans have had to struggle to get basic care
because this administration has put them on the back burner. We learned
this week that, tragically, thousands of our veterans didn't get the
help they needed and they took their own lives. CBS reported that in
2005 alone, 6,256 veterans committed suicide--a rate twice that of
other Americans. That is shocking.
The bill we are working on today, and that we hope we can get enough
votes for, will ensure we are meeting our veterans' needs every step of
the way, from the day they are recruited, while they are trained, while
they are deployed, and as they transition back home.
Finally, while President Bush has waged war overseas, he has insisted
on paying for it in ways that have left us tragically underfunded here
at home. Democrats have taken the right steps to reinvest in the many
parts of our budget that have been neglected. We have got to move
forward. I hope we can move this legislation that has been offered on
our side, because the war in Iraq is not making us more secure, it is
making us less secure. It is hurting how our Nation is perceived around
the world, it is hurting our military, it is hurting our veterans, and
it is hurting our security at home.
Today we have an opportunity to make progress, and I urge my
colleagues to support the bridge funding and send a message to the
President that it is time to change course in Iraq.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic
side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may speak for up to 7
minutes. The balance of the time on the Democratic side has already
been allocated.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we face an opportunity to change the
course and the direction of our policy in Iraq. The other body, the
House of Representatives, has sent a provision--a bridge appropriations
supplemental--to us, which includes language that would change this
policy. It would change our missions, it would establish a goal to
complete the transition to this new mission by the end of next year,
and it would invest resources, energy, and effort in diplomacy as well
as military activity. I think it is critical to do that.
We have, for the last several months, seen an increase in American
forces on the ground, and the sheer presence and effectiveness of
American forces has created some tactical momentum in terms of the
security situation. But the fundamental challenge remains to get the
policy right in Iraq, and that is the responsibility of the Government
of Iraq. In January of this year, 2007, the President announced his
surge and he said:
I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other
leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the
Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises,
it will lose the support of the American people and it
will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
Well, those individuals in this body who oppose the House provision,
the changed missions, are essentially declaring that there is an open-
ended commitment; that we will not condition our resources and our
effort in Iraq. I think that is wrong. And, in fact, it is wrong
because what has been acknowledged over the last several days is the
fact that the Iraqi political leaders have not seized on the situation
in Iraq. They have not followed through.
The President proposed his surge because he thought the Government of
Iraq would have the breathing space it needed to make progress in other
critical areas. No such significant progress has been made. Yesterday,
on the front page of The Washington Post, Tom Ricks wrote:
Senior military commanders here now portray the
intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government as the
key threat facing
[[Page S14579]]
the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaida terrorists,
Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed militias.
General Odierno, our tactical commander, the corps commander,
indicated if that doesn't happen--i.e., the Government taking charge--
we are going to have to review our strategy. Well, that is not taking
place. We have to review our strategy. Indeed, we have to change our
strategy. We have to have a strategy with limited missions,
counterterrorism, force protection, training Iraqi security forces.
Those are the missions embedded in the supplemental bridge legislation
passed by the House. Those are the missions we should pursue. Those are
the missions that are essential to our security.
The Iraqi people, the Iraqi Government, must solve their own internal
problems. We have given them space. They have not used it. Now we must
seize on those mission which will protect the United States without an
open-ended, unlimited commitment of our forces and our resources.
I urge that all of our colleagues join together in a bipartisan
fashion and strongly support the supplemental bridge legislation
proposed by the House, including conditions which are essential to our
progress forward in Iraq.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 5
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is only 3\1/2\ minutes that
have not been allocated.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask I be yielded that time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, once again the Senate has an opportunity to
address the situation in Iraq. This morning, we are considering a
motion to proceed to H.R. 4156 that contains a so-called bridge fund of
$50 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq.
The House-passed bill provides for the President, within 30 days
after enactment, to commence a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from
Iraq and for the transition of those forces to specific missions: (1)
protecting U.S. diplomatic facilities, U.S. forces, American citizens;
(2) conducting limited training, equipping and providing logistical and
intelligence support to Iraqi Security Forces; and (3) engaging in
targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, al Qaida
affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq. It sets a
goal for the completion of the transition would be December 15, 2008.
Some argue that we should not identify the new more limited missions
or commit to transition to them. The President told the American people
on September 13 that we will transition to a new phase starting in
December and that ``As this transition in mission takes place, our
troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including
counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting
Iraqi forces.'' Does that sound familiar? Well, it's like the House
passed language before us.
It is the goal of completing the transition that he objects to--
although it is a goal and not binding. Setting a goal may be too much
for he who is unwilling to set a goal--but just don't misrepresent it
as a fixed timetable when it is stated as a goal.
From all accounts, the surge has already produced militarily
progress--sectarian violence in most regions of Iraq, particularly
Baghdad, is down.
The problem is that, while the surge has at this point seen
militarily progress, it has not accomplished its primary purpose as
announced by President Bush last January, when he stated that its
purpose was to give the Iraqi government ``the breathing space it needs
to make progress in other critical areas.'' The President also said
that ``America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has
announced.'' Well we haven't. The President statement that he ``will
hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced'' is so
much hollow rhetoric. Those benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon
law; approving a de-Baathification law; completing the work of a
Constitutional Review Committee; and holding provincial elections.
Those commitments, made 1\1/2\ years ago, which were to have been
completed by January 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi
political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided.
As a matter of fact, the Iraqi leaders appear to be farther apart today
than they were at the start of the surge. The Iraqi political
leadership's response to the breathing space provided by the surge has
been nothing less than abysmal.
One year ago this month, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki
himself: ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle
of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi]
politicians.'' Secretary of Defense Gates agreed with that assessment
in December of last year. President Bush agreed in January. Petraeus
agreed in September. If everyone agrees that this is a political
crisis, why does the administration keep focusing on military
solutions?
General Odierno, according to yesterday's Washington Post, described
the breathing space as a window of opportunity, which may close at any
time. Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of
this window of opportunity is of course their decision. We can't make
that decision for them. They are a sovereign country.
But how long U.S. forces remain deployed to Iraq, and with what
missions, and how long U.S. forces continue to fight the insurgency
instead of the Iraqi army taking over that fight, and how long we
continue to subject our brave and valiant servicemen and women to the
risk of death and serious injury--those decisions are in our hands.
Secretary Gates has said that pressure on the Iraqi political leaders
is useful. President Bush has acknowledged as much. How can Congress
act to put pressure on the Iraqi political leaders? By setting a goal
for the transition of the missions of U.S. forces in Iraq to the more
supporting and less direct role. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in
their December 2006 report essentially called for a transition of the
mission of U.S. forces in Iraq very much like that called for in this
bill--only they called for it to take place by the first quarter of
2008.
We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience has run
out and that they need to seize the opportunity that has been given
them. Their dawdling will only end when they have no choice.
The bill we will hopefully vote for sets a goal for completion of a
transition to missions the President has said were going to transition
to. I wish it were binding but setting a timetable as a goal is better
than silence which leaves in place the open-endedness of our current
presence.
It is that open-ended commitment which continues to create in the
minds of the Iraqi political leaders the false impression that their
future is in our hands instead of theirs.
We should vote for cloture on the House passed bill and be allowed to
vote on its substance.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this morning we are going to be voting
on two supplemental appropriations bills. Both of these bills would
appropriate funds for our operations in Iraq--one would provide $50
billion while the other would provide $70 billion. However, the key
difference between the bills is very simple: the goal of one of the
bills is to help our efforts in Iraq succeed, and the goal of the other
bill is to make our efforts fail.
H.R. 4156, which passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday by
a margin of only 15 votes, would mandate that the funds appropriated
through the bill can only be used for a ``safe and orderly'' withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Iraq and requires that a withdrawal of U.S. forces
begin 30 days after enactment with a goal for a complete withdraw of
December 15, 2008. If there is a reason the restrictions in this bill
sound familiar, it is because they are. This bill employs the same
jargon and ill-advised deadlines and withdrawal dates that the majority
tried on the Defense authorization bill and fiscal year 2007
supplemental appropriations bill earlier this year. Those strategies
failed and, in the case of the appropriations bill, the proposed
restrictions were removed after a Presidential veto and Congress then
passed
[[Page S14580]]
a supplemental appropriations bill without surrender dates. These
strategies will fail this time as well, and they will fail for several
reasons.
First, in the midst of progress in Iraq--which no one denies--and a
strategy which is working, it simply does not make sense to tie the
hands of the commanders on the ground and force them to implement a
strategy which--in the best judgment of our military leaders, our
intelligence agencies, and the perspective of countless outside
observers--will lead to the failure of our mission and the rapid
deterioration of conditions in Iraq and for the Iraqi people.
Second, the type of restrictions and conditions in this bill exceed
both the authority and the expertise of the legislative branch. For
example, section 104 of the bill requires that no unit can be deployed
to Iraq unless it is certified to be fully mission capable 15 days
prior to deployment. Everyone will agree that our troops need to be
trained, rested, and ready to execute the missions they are given. No
one will disagree that the global war on terrorism has stretched our
military and that our military is having to adapt to meet the
challenges we put before them. However, to legislate readiness levels
in a time of war is extremely unwise and--in my judgment--
unconstitutional. Although appealing at face value, such restrictions
will hamper our commanders, ability to respond to crises and weaken
their ability to take advantage of momentum. These types of
restrictions would have compromised our effectiveness and success in
previous military engagements with catastrophic results.
Third, the strategy which inspires these restrictions is--at root
level--not a military strategy. It is a political strategy. The tactics
being used by those who would enact conditions and deadlines like those
in this bill are not based on any strategic thought or analysis--
instead they respond to a political base that is anti-war and refuses
to acknowledge the progress we are making. Political strategies for
fighting wars--like the strategy we are dealing with now--all have one
thing in common--they result in failure. They are shortsighted,
politically motivated, and--most importantly--do not serve any national
security objective.
We are making progress in Iraq. The strategy our President and our
military commanders have implemented is working. We are receiving
regular updates from our leaders in Iraq which are not ``glowing,'' but
they are positive. Most importantly, our leaders are adjusting their
strategy in accordance with developments on the ground as well as the
realities back home. They are doing this wisely, not hastily, or in
response to opinion polls, but according to good judgment and a
realistic assessment of what will work, what won't work, and what is
appropriate at this point of time. H.R. 4156 will put a stop to our
leaders' ability to do this. It will keep them from doing the jobs we
have sent them to do, and that is to lead, to decide, to make
judgments, and to report back to us on their effectiveness.
One week from today, I will be in Iraq. I will be spending
Thanksgiving day with the troops and I am so looking forward to it.
While we are there on this bipartisan trip, we are going to be getting
the facts about what is happening in Iraq. I know militarily, as I
stated, we are moving forward. That is what this bill is all about,
supporting our troops. But at the same time, we know there are
challenges there, particularly on the political side. The stability of
the Iraqi Government is not where we want it to be, and we are going to
be delivering a bipartisan message from this body that it is time for
the Iraqi leadership to get their political Government in order and it
is time for them to begin to exercise real leadership of the Iraqi
people because we are not going to be there forever.
They now have the ability, because of the great work the men and
women of the U.S. military have done and continue to do, to provide
stability to that Government, and that message will be delivered very
clearly.
For all the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R.
4156 and in support of Senators McConnell and Stevens' alternative, S.
2340.
Now I wish to move to the other vote we are going to be taking today.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may proceed.
the farm bill
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the upcoming
vote to restrict debate on the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.
Rule XXII has historically been used in the Senate of the United States
as a way to limit the duration of debate on bills of consequence. This
rule is typically utilized when the Senate--long known for its ability
to conduct lengthy and protracted debates--is unable to conduct its
business in a timely fashion due to a threat of filibuster or an
unwillingness on the part of some Senators to end debate and vote on
critical legislation.
Today, the Senate has been forced into a cloture vote, not because we
have conducted a protracted debate with no end in sight; not because a
filibuster has been employed by the minority; not because there is a
lack of desire by anyone in the Senate to pass a farm bill; but because
the past precedent of conducting a fair and open farm bill debate was
trampled upon before this process was even started.
Both Democrats and Republicans have utilized the procedural tool of
``filling the tree'' in the past in an effort to restrict our
deliberative process. Each circumstance for employing this tool is
unique and I respect the right of the majority leader to choose this
process; but I certainly wish he would have chosen a more bipartisan
approach. The bill we passed out of the Agriculture Committee enjoyed
so much support from our committee members that it was passed
unanimously by voice vote. Our committee knew and understood that a
bill of this magnitude would not only have to face the scrutiny of the
entire Senate; but that it would also likely be amended in some form or
fashion. We recognized and embraced that fact because we knew the
strong bipartisan support within our committee would allow us to debate
this legislation on the floor under the guiding principle of providing
an effective safety net for America's farmers and ranchers; rather than
the principles of political partisanship and procedural maneuvers.
Unfortunately, as occurred with the House version of the farm bill,
partisan politics were inserted into this debate at the final hour and
have successfully transformed a bill that enjoyed vast bipartisan
support into a partisan spectacle on the Senate floor.
Let me be clear to every Senator on the floor and every farmer and
rancher in America listening today; I have a vested interest in the
passage of this legislation. I have tirelessly worked on the farm bill
before us today for over 2 years. I have traveled the entire country
and held field hearings to garner the views of America's farmers and
ranchers. I have conducted oversight hearings, initiated GAO
investigations, traveled to rural destinations across this great
country and have met with everyone with an interest in this bill from
the peanut farmer in Georgia to Agricultural Ministers from foreign
lands.
I have done all of these things with a singular goal in mind; that
is, to craft a 2007 farm bill that will carry American agriculture into
the next 5 years in a very prosperous way. With the help of my friends
on the Agriculture Committee, both Democratic and Republican, and
particularly the chairman, and particularly Senator Conrad, I believe
we have accomplished just that.
No one can challenge my sincere desire to pass this bill. I reject
any suggestion that I do not want a farm bill. But I want a farm bill
done the right way, a farm bill that is debated under the long-held
principles of this body that any Member may offer any amendment he or
she desires. Had we taken this approach on Tuesday morning, November 6,
I am quite confident that today we would be voting on final passage
rather than attempting to restrict a debate that has yet to even occur.
It is, frankly, irresponsible and disrespectful to the Members of
this body that we would constrict debate on this critical piece of
legislation to the rules of postcloture without allowing any
substantive debate. To be clear, there has been no debate on the farm
bill in the 10 days it has been on the floor--not one vote, not one
amendment considered, not one meaningful debate on the substance and
merits of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.
[[Page S14581]]
Every Member must understand that if we vote for cloture today, we
will limit every Member's ability to offer amendments they believe are
vital to this bill. Some will argue that 30 hours of debate will be
adequate to address the concerns of Members, but history tells a clear
and different story.
During the 2002 farm bill debate, the Senate held three cloture
votes, and they all failed. The farm bill was only allowed to move
forward when the then-Senate majority leader finally allowed an open
process. Once he did so, the bill was completed in a little over a
week. An open process served the Senate then, and it will serve us well
today.
I respect this body. I respect the Members who rightfully have an
opportunity to debate any piece of legislation brought before them. It
is not in our interest nor in the interest of the American agricultural
producer to force this bill through the Senate without the due
consideration of the Members who so passionately represent them. Let us
not rush to the finish line simply to stumble on our final step. A
deliberative process will serve America well and perhaps will allow the
bipartisan spirit of our Senate Agriculture Committee to infect and
overwhelm the partisan rancor on the Senate floor.
I humbly urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to invoke
cloture.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me first respond to my friend from
Georgia and for the benefit of all Senators make it quite clear that if
we have cloture on the farm bill this morning, we will still be allowed
to have up to 3 days, 3 full days of debate, 30 hours, and untold
numbers of amendments. Every amendment that is relevant and germane to
agriculture in the farm bill will be allowed to be offered and voted
on. I wish to make that very clear.
Now, if a Senator wants votes on immigration, well then put it on
some other bill. If he wants to vote on taxes, put it on some other
bill. If they want to vote on whatever else they might want to bring up
that is important, put it on another bill. Let's do what is needed for
our farmers and ranchers and rural America and get the farm bill
passed. That is what this cloture vote will do this morning.
Now, you know, we have a good, strong bipartisan bill. We came out of
committee on a voice vote without one dissenting vote voiced--without
one. We spent a day and a half--a record short time to my knowledge--in
getting a farm bill through the committee.
Mrs. HUTCHINSON. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent
request?
Mr. HARKIN. Without losing my right to the floor, of course.
Mrs. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow
the Senator from Iowa for up to 2 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask if this is additional time being requested for
debate on the bill or under the time allotted?
Mrs. HUTCHINSON. Under the time allotted.
Mr. DURBIN. I withdraw my objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that the preceding few minutes not
come from my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have not.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the farm bill before us was laid down 10
days ago. Yet during that time we have been blocked from voting on any
amendments--not one amendment in 10 days. So the majority leader has
correctly filed a cloture motion in an effort to allow this body to
offer, debate and vote on amendments and pass this vital legislation
without further unreasonable delay. The cloture vote, I say to all, is
pivotal, crucial as to whether we will have a new farm bill this year.
Everyone knows it. Let me remind my colleagues of what is at stake, why
it is so critically important that we put an end to the delay and move
ahead.
The pending legislation stays within strict pay-go budget limits. Yet
we provide good farm income protection; we promote new economic
opportunities for farm and ranch families, especially in the area of
energy production; and we help dairy farmers and especially the
specialty crop producers all across America. There is more in this bill
for specialty crops than any farm bill ever passed in the history of
this country. The bill boosts economic growth, jobs, and quality of
life in rural America with rural development money in the bill. It
makes major new investments in conservation of our natural resources,
to save soil, increase water quality, restore wetlands and wildlife
habitat. A big part of this farm bill will allow low-income Americans
to put a little more food on the family table and to improve the diets
not only of our families but of our kids in school. We also have very
strong provisions in this bill to help restore our national energy
security by promoting biofuels, other renewable energy sources and
rural energy initiatives.
These are just some of the highlights that are in this bill. There is
much more in the farm bill to benefit rural America and all of our
Nation. We have come too far with this bill, we have accomplished too
much to let this vitally important bill languish and stall. In fact, at
this point, the fate of this bill is in jeopardy--in jeopardy. That is
why this cloture vote is so critical.
We are at a procedural impasse. We simply cannot obtain the necessary
cooperation from the Republican leadership. They will not agree to a
reasonable plan that we debate and deal with relevant, germane
amendments so that we avoid having the farm bill even further
sidetracked by becoming a Christmas tree of nongermane, nonrelevant
amendments, far off the subject of dealing with the farm bill.
I tried--I tried to obtain consent to allow the Senate to debate and
vote on amendments that Republicans themselves have filed and
presumably wanted to offer, debate and vote on. I asked unanimous
consent to bring them up, get a time limit, and vote on them. My
request was rejected out of hand. We cannot even get consent to adopt
over 50 amendments that have been agreed upon on both sides for a
managers' amendment--50 that have been agreed upon. We cannot even get
consent to adopt those. Now that shows you how unreasonable--how
unreasonable this lack of cooperation has become.
I certainly hope the situation is not a deliberate and orchestrated
attempt to stop the farm bill dead in its tracks, but I am beginning to
wonder. There are enough rumors floating around. When rumors start
coming from different sources, you know there may be something behind
them. What I am hearing is that the White House has put out the word
behind the scenes to stop this farm bill--stop it. Now, why is that? I
began to wonder.
Well, keep in mind, the White House has issued a statement of policy
threatening a veto of the farm bill as passed by the House. Then the
White House issued a threat to veto the farm bill reported by the
Senate Agriculture Committee. So that means if we pass the bill, if we
go to conference, we will probably send the White House something they
said they would veto.
I suspect some of the White House political people said: You cannot
veto a farm bill. Do you want to lose all of rural America for the
Republican Party next year? You cannot veto that farm bill. So perhaps
instead it would be better if the bill never made it to the White
House. Kill the bill here in the Senate. Kill it here.
I see the heavy hand of the White House behind what is going on here.
I have worked very closely with Senator Chambliss. We have worked very
hard to get to this point. We have worked very hard to get a bipartisan
coalition together. But I detect something else interfering here: I
detect the White House's heavy hand coming in, telling people what to
do and what not to do.
The majority leader has done the appropriate thing by filing cloture.
Now, let me again repeat, cloture does not cut off debate, and it does
not cut off any relevant, germane amendment to the farm bill. As I
said, if we vote for cloture this morning, we can have 3 days of
debate, 10 hours a day. We can have 20 amendments or more debated and
voted on, plus the 50 we have already agreed upon and others. Plus,
every amendment that is relevant and germane is guaranteed an up-or-
down vote at the end of cloture. No one will
[[Page S14582]]
be denied a vote on an amendment to the farm bill as long as it is
relevant and germane. If someone wants to add a Christmas tree ornament
dealing with immigration or foreign relations or the war in Iraq or
something, yes, that amendment is out after cloture. They will not be
able to offer that amendment. But that comes down to the question, do
you want a farm bill or not? Do you want a farm bill or not? It is too
important to allow a small minority or the White House--maybe people
here are bowing to pressure from the White House--to hold it up
indefinitely.
We are falling behind. If we get cloture, we can move ahead
aggressively. We can come back after the Thanksgiving recess, spend
about 2 or 3 days, 3 days on the farm bill, and it would pass the
Senate. We can go to conference, work out our differences, and send the
bill to the White House. That will not happen if we do not get cloture.
If we do not get cloture, my friends, there may well not be any farm
bill.
Now, who has a stake in this? I have a good number of letters here
with many signatures. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HARKIN. Here is a letter with 11 groups telling us to move
forward without further delay, everything from the American Farmland
Trust and Audubon, to the National Wildlife Federation and the Izaak
Walton League of America.
Here is another letter with 185 signatures urging the Senate to vote
for cloture. Many of those signing the letter are antihunger and
nutrition groups ranging from the America's Second Harvest to the
Atlanta Community Food Bank, the Food Bank of North Alabama, the Food
Bank of the Albemarle in North Carolina--food banks and others who
fight hunger all over the country realize they need this farm bill. The
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National
Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation and many others--
again, 185 groups on this letter asking us to vote for cloture this
morning.
Here is another letter--61 groups who wrote in late September calling
for expedited action on the new farm bill. Well, that is what cloture
is--expedited action. This letter is signed by groups from the American
Farm Bureau Federation, to the American Soybean Association, to the
National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council,
Pheasants Forever, and the School Nutrition Association, to name just a
few. They want expedited action.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed his 10
minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I urge all Senators to vote for cloture and let us get
this critical farm bill passed, go to conference, send it to the White
House, and get it signed before Christmas.
Exhibit 1
November 15, 2007.
Dear Senator: The undersigned conservation organizations
urge the Senate to move forward with consideration of the
farm bill without further delay but with full and fair
consideration of relevant amendments. We need a new and
improved conservation title, and extension of the 2002 Farm
Bill is not, in our view, an acceptable alternative. We
believe the bill reported by the Agriculture Committee makes
very important strides in addressing key conservation issues
and programs, but we also are united in the view that
important improvements to both policy and funding need to be
made on the floor. Therefore, we urge you to move as quickly
as possible to considering, amending, and passing a new farm
bill.
Sincerely,
American Farmland Trust, Audubon, Center for Native
Ecosystems, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coevolution
Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Izaak Walton League
of America, National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture, National Wildlife Federation, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition.
____
November 15, 2007.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations write to urge
the Senate to vote in favor of the farm bill cloture motion.
It is critical that the Senate pass omnibus farm legislation
as soon as possible in order to assure enactment of a new
farm bill this year.
While our organizations have differences on specific policy
recommendations, we believe it is vitally important that the
Senate pass a 2007 Farm Bill as soon as possible. The 2002
law expired in September, leaving farmers and ranchers
uncertain of the policy environment in which they will
operate next year and several conservation and nutrition
programs expired. These programs that conserve land resources
and serve poor and hungry people must be reauthorized and
adequately funded now.
Extending the 2002 Farm Bill is not an acceptable
alternative to enacting new legislation that addresses
important needs in each of these areas. Extension is only a
short term solution that does not provide the assurances that
the nutrition, agriculture, conservation and renewable energy
communities need for efficient long-term planning.
We worked with the Senate Agriculture Committee to develop
a farm bill that addresses our priorities, but are concerned
that delayed floor action is lessening the chances of
completing a new farm bill this year. We therefore urge a yes
vote on the cloture motion on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
AARP; Alameda County Community Food Bank; America's
Second Harvest--The Nation's Food Bank Network;
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy;
American Farmland Trust; American Heart Association;
American Public Health Association; American Wind
Energy Association; America's Second Harvest of KY's
Heartland Food Bank; America's Second Harvest of
Wisconsin; Association of American Veterinary Medical
Colleges; Association of Arizona Food Banks; Atlanta
Community Food Bank; Bay Area Food Bank, Theodore,
Alabama; Blue Ridge Area Food Bank, Verona, Virginia;
California Association of Food Banks; California Food
Policy Advocates; California Hunger Action Coalition;
Capital Area Food Bank of Texas; Care and Share Food
Bank for Southern Colorado; Cathedral Kitchen, Camden,
New Jersey; Center for Civil Justice, Michigan; Center
for Public Policy Priorities, Texas; Central
Pennsylvania Food Bank; Children's Alliance,
Washington; Children's Hunger Alliance, Ohio;
Children's Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-
SNAP); Cleveland Foodbank, Inc.; Coalition on Human
Needs; Community Food Security Coalition; Colorado
Anti-Hunger Network; Colorado Food Bank Association;
Community Food Bank of New Jersey; Community Food Banks
of South Dakota; Congressional Hunger Center;
Connecticut Association for Human Services; Connecticut
Food Bank; Dare to Care Food Bank, Louisville,
Kentucky; DC Hunger Solutions; Denver Urban Ministries.
Emergency Food and Shelter Program, NYC; End Hunger
Connecticut; End Hunger Network, Houston, Texas;
Environmental and Energy Study Institute; Environmental
Law and Policy Center; Familia Center, Santa Cruz,
California; Feeding Indiana's Hungry (FIsH); Feinstein
Center for a Hunger Free America, University of Rhode
Island; Florida Impact; Food & Water Watch; Food Bank
for New York City; Food Bank of Alaska; Food Bank of
Central and Eastern North Carolina; Food Bank of
Central New York; Food Bank of Delaware; Food Bank of
Iowa; Food Bank of Lincoln, Nebraska; Food Bank of
North Alabama; Food Bank of South Jersey; Food Bank of
the Albemarle, North Carolina; Food Bank of the Rio
Grande Valley, Inc.; FOOD for Lane County, Eugene
Oregon; Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); FOOD
Share, Inc., Oxnard, CA.
Foodbank of the Virginia Peninsula; FoodLink for Tulare
County, Inc.; Foodshare, Bloomfield, CT; FRAMAX Child
Care Food Program, Modesto; Georgia State Food Bank
Association; Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana, Inc.; God's
Pantry Food Bank, Lexington, Kentucky; Great Plains
Food Bank, Fargo, ND; Greater Chicago Food Depository;
Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger; Greater
Pittsburgh Community Food Bank; Harry Chapin Food Bank,
Ft. Myers, Florida; Harvesters--The Community Food
Network, Kansas City, Missouri; Houston Food Bank;
Hunger Solutions Minnesota; Illinois Food Bank
Association; Illinois Hunger Coalition; Island Harvest,
Mineola, New York; Kalamazoo Loaves & Fishes, Michigan;
Kansas Food Bank; Kentucky Task Force on Hunger.
Lincoln County Food Share, Newport, Oregon; Los Angeles
Regional Foodbank; Louisiana Food Bank Association;
Manna Food Center, Rockville, Maryland; MAZON: A Jewish
Response to Hunger; Mercer Street Friends Food Bank,
Ewing, New Jersey; Michigan Legal Services; Middle
Georgia Community Food Bank, Macon, Georgia; Midwest
Dairy Coalition; Migrant Legal Action Program;
Minnesota Food
[[Page S14583]]
Share; Mississippi Food Network; Montana Food Bank
Network; N.C. Cooperative Extension, Mitchell County
Center, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences; North
Carolina State University; National Advocacy Center of
the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Association
of Conservation Districts; National Association of
County and City Health Officials; National Association
of State Departments of Agriculture; National
Association of State Energy Officials; National Center
for Law and Economic Justice.
National Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP)
Association; National Farmers Union; National Milk
Producers Federation; National Puerto Rican Coalition,
Inc.; Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public
Interest; New Hampshire Food Bank; New Jersey Anti-
Hunger Coalition; New Mexico Association of Food Banks;
NM Human Needs Coordinating Council; North Texas Food
Bank; Northeast Iowa Food Bank; Nutrition Consortium of
NYS, Inc., New York; NYC Coalition Against Hunger; Ohio
Association of Second Harvest Food Banks; OMB Watch;
Oregon Food Bank; Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force;
Ozarks Food Harvest, Springfield, Missouri; PANDORA-
Patient Alliance for Neuroendocrineimmune Disorders
Organization for Research and Advocacy, Inc.; Partners
in Ending Hunger, Maine.
Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center; Public Policy Center
of Mississippi; Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma;
RESULTS/RESULTS Educational Fund; Roadrunner Food Bank,
Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Francisco Food Bank;
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Second
Harvest Food Bank for San Diego; Second Harvest Food
Bank of Greater New Orleans and Acadiana; Second
Harvest Food Bank of Middle Tennessee; Second Harvest
Food Bank of Orange County; Second Harvest Food Bank of
Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California; Second
Harvest Food Bank of the Chattahoochee Valley,
Columbus, Georgia; Second Harvest Gleaners Food Bank of
West Michigan, Inc.; Second Harvest Heartland,
Maplewood, Minnesota; Second Harvest Inland Northwest,
Spokane, Washington; Second Harvest North Central Food
Bank, Grand Rapids, Minnesota; Second Harvest Northern
Lakes Food Bank, Duluth, Minnesota; SHARE Food Program,
Inc., Philadelphia; Side Campaign Against Hunger, New
York City; So Others Might Eat, Inc. (SOME),
Washington, D.C.
Social Ministries Task Force, Presbytery of Des Moines,
Iowa; Society of Saint Andrew; South Plains Food Bank,
Lubbock, Texas; Southern New Hampshire Services, Inc.;
Southern Peanut Farmers Federation; St. Leo Food
Connection, Tacoma, Washington; St. Louis Area
Foodbank; St. Mary's Food Bank Alliance, Phoenix,
Arizona; Statewide Food Network of New Jersey; TEFAP
Alliance; The Food Bank of Central Louisiana; The Food
Bank of Northwest Louisiana; The Food Bank of Western
Massachusetts, Inc.; The Food Bank, Memphis, Tennessee;
The Foodbank, Inc., Dayton, Ohio;
The Greater Boston Food Bank; The Jewish Council for
Public Affairs; The Kauai Food Bank, Inc, Hawaii; Union
for Reform Judaism; United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union; United Food Bank, Mesa, Arizona;
USAction/USAction Education Fund; Utahns Against
Hunger; Ventura County Food Bank; Vermont Campaign to
End Childhood Hunger; Vermont Foodbank; Weld Food Bank,
Greeley, Colorado; Western Organization of Resource
Councils; WHEAT, Phoenix, Arizona; World Hunger Year
(WHY).
____
September 28, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Tom Harkin,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry, U.S. Senate.
Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Harkin, and Chambliss: The
undersigned organizations write to support expedited action
on the 2007 Farm Bill. It is critical that the Senate develop
omnibus farm legislation as soon as possible in order to
assure enactment of a new farm bill this year.
While our organizations have differences on specific policy
recommendations, we believe it is vitally important that the
Senate Agriculture Committee mark up and pass a 2007 Farm
Bill as soon as possible. Only a few days remain before
provisions of the 2002 law expire. Farmers and ranchers need
certainty on the policy environment in which they will
operate next year. Several conservation and nutrition
programs expire at the end of the fiscal year. These programs
that conserve land resources and serve poor and hungry people
must be reauthorized and adequately funded now.
Extending the 2002 Farm Bill is not an acceptable
alternative to enacting new legislation that addresses
important needs in each of these areas. Extension is only a
short-term solution that does not provide the assurances that
the nutrition, agriculture and conservation communities need
for efficient long-term planning.
We are working with the Senate Agriculture Committee to
develop a farm bill that addresses our priorities, but are
concerned that delayed action on this legislation is
lessening the chances of completing a new farm bill this
year. We therefore urge a quick and favorable resolution to
the funding and other outstanding issues that are holding up
action on this important legislation. We look forward to
working with you to move this process forward in the Senate
in the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
AARP; Alliance to End Hunger; American Farm Bureau
Federation; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Malting Barley
Association, Inc.; American Soybean Association;
America's Second Harvest; Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies; Children's Sentinel Nutrition
Assessment Program (C-SNAP); Coalition of Human Needs;
Community Food Security Coalition; Congressional Hunger
Center; End Hunger Network; First Focus; Food Research
and Action Center; Jewish Council for Public Affairs
(JCPA); MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger; Migrant
Legal Action Program; National Association of
Conservation Districts; National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
National Association of Resource Conservation and
Development Councils; National Association of Wheat
Growers; National Barley Growers Association; National
Cotton Council; National Corn Growers Association;
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association;
National Education Association (NEA); National Farmers
Union; National Grange; National Law Center on
Homelessness & Poverty; National Milk Producers
Federation; National Policy and Advocacy Council on
Homelessness (NPACH); National Pork Producers Council;
National Recreation and Park Association; National
Sorghum Producers; National Sunflower Association;
National WIC Association; National Wild Turkey
Foundation; NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice
Lobby.
OMB Watch; Pheasants Forever; Presbyterian Church (USA)
Washington Office; Quail Unlimited; RESULTS; School
Nutrition Association; Share Our Strength; Society of
St. Andrew; Southern Peanut Farmers Federation;
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance; The Brewers
Association; The United Methodist Church--General Board
of Church and Society; U.S. Canola Association; U.S.
Dry Bean Council; U.S. Rice Producers Association;
USAction; USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council; USA Rice
Federation; Voices for America's Children; Wider
Opportunities for Women; YWCA USA.
____
Specialty Crop
Farm Bill Alliance,
November 15, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: The Specialty Crop Farm
Bill Alliance, a national coalition of more than 120
specialty crop organizations representing 350 specialty
crops, is disappointed in the lack of progress that is being
made by the Senate regarding the consideration and passage of
the 2007 Farm Bill. The reauthorization of the Farm Bill
represents an historic opportunity to move agriculture into
the 21st Century by investing key resources into the
livelihoods and business of specialty crop producers across
the country.
Most importantly, this ongoing delay with the 2007 Farm
Bill will make it difficult to enact legislation that
addresses the needs of the specialty crop industry, which
include increasing the role of specialty crops to improve
nutrition, expanding production and product innovation
research capabilities and improving critical procedures to
control for invasive pests and diseases from entering this
country. Therefore, it is critical that the Senate resolve
their differences and pass a bill expeditiously so that a
conference committee can be appointed and a final bill can be
approved in 2007.
Specialty crop producers across the nation urge the Senate
leadership and members of the Senate to come together quickly
to pass a new Farm Bill for American farmers and consumers.
Thank you for your consideration of these important
matters.
Sincerely,
Alabama Watermelon Association; American Mushroom
Institute; American Nursery and Landscape Association;
Arizona Winegrowers Association; Blue Diamond Growers;
Buy California Marketing Agreement; California
Association of Nurseries & Garden Centers; California
Association of Wine Grape
[[Page S14584]]
Growers; California Citrus Mutual; California Dried
Plum Board; California Fig Institute; California Fresh
Fig Growers Association; California Grape and Tree
Fruit League; California Strawberry Commission;
California Table Grape Commission; California Walnut
Commission; California-Arizona Watermelon Association;
Cherry Marketing Institute; Colorado Potato
Administrative Committee; Colorado Wine Industry
Development Board.
Connecticut Farm Wine Development Council; Connecticut
Vineyard & Winery Association; Empire State Potato
Growers; Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Citrus Packers;
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Florida
Strawberry Growers Association; Florida Tomato
Exchange; Florida Watermelon Association; Fruit Growers
Marketing Association; Georgia Fruit and Vegetable
Growers Association; Georgia Watermelon Association;
Grower-Shipper Association of Central California; Idaho
Grape Growers and Wine Producers Commission; Idaho
Grower Shippers Association; Idaho Potato Commission;
Indian River Citrus League; Indiana-Illinois Watermelon
Association; Leafy Greens Council; Maine Potato Board.
Maryland-Delaware Watermelon Association; Maryland
Wineries Association; Miami-Dade County; Michigan Apple
Committee; Minnesota Area II Potato Growers Research
and Promotion Council; Minnesota Grape Growers
Association; Missouri Wine & Grape Board; Missouri-
Arkansas Watermelon Association; National Berry Crop
Initiative; National Grape Cooperative Association;
National Grape and Wine Initiative; National Onion
Association; National Potato Council; National
Watermelon Association; New England Vegetable and Berry
Growers; New Mexico Wine Growers Association; New York
Apple Association; New York Wine & Grape Foundation;
North American Blueberry Council; North American
Bramble Growers Association.
North American Strawberry Growers Association; North
Carolina Blueberry Council; North Carolina Grape & Wine
Council; North Carolina Potato Association; North
Carolina Strawberry Association; North Carolina
Watermelon Association; Northern Kentucky Vintners &
Grape Growers Association; Northwest Horticultural
Council; Northern Plains Potato Growers; Ocean Spray
Cranberries, Inc.; Ohio Wine Producers Association;
Oklahoma Grape Growers & Wine Makers Association;
Oregon Potato Commission; Oregon Raspberry & Blackberry
Commission; Oregon Strawberry Commission; Oregon
Winegrowers Association; Peace River Valley Citrus
Growers Association; Peerbolt Crop Management; Potato
Growers of Idaho; Produce Marketing Association.
Rocky Mountain Association of Vintners & Viticulturists;
Society of American Florists; South Carolina Watermelon
Association; South Florida Tropical Fruit Growers
Association; Sun Maid Growers; Sunkist Growers,
Incorporated; Tennessee Farm Winegrowers Association;
Texas Citrus Mutual; Texas Produce Association; Texas-
Oklahoma Watermelon Association; Texas Vegetable
Association; Texas Wine & Grape Growers Association;
Tropical Fruit Growers of South Florida; U.S. Apple
Association; United Fresh Potato Growers of Idaho;
United Fresh Produce Association; United Potato Growers
of America; Virginia Apple Growers Association;
Virginia Wineries Association; Washington Association
of Wine Grape Growers.
Washington Red Raspberry Commission; Washington Apple
Commission; Washington State Potato Commission;
Welch's; Western Growers; Western Pistachio
Association; Wild Blueberry Commission; WineAmerica;
Wine Institute; Winegrape Growers of America;
Winegrowers Association of Georgia; WineMichigan; Wine
Producers Commission; Wyoming Grape & Wine Association.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remaining Republican time be divided equally between Senators Graham,
Thune, and Sessions, and that I be allowed to speak at this point.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we know what the deal is. The Senator
from Iowa knows what the problem is. The Democratic leadership is
refusing to allow amendments on the farm bill, and the farm bill is not
going to pass until they do. And they are going to allow amendments at
some time, and we are going to pass a farm bill. That is what the truth
is, and everybody knows it here.
But I want to talk about something that is really troubling to me. We
had a hearing yesterday in the Armed Services Committee. The Secretary
of the Army, Pete Geren, and GEN George Casey, the Chief of Staff of
the Army, told us that they are reaching a crisis in maintaining
support for our troops in Iraq, that they need desperately for this
Congress to fulfill its responsibility to support the troops we have
sent into the field in harm's way to execute the policy of this Nation.
They are there because we sent them there. They are doing fabulous
work, and they need support.
Just remember, this summer we had a long debate about what to do.
President Bush said we need to change our policy. The American people
said we need to change our policy. We sent General Petraeus there. I
see the Senator from Texas. I don't know if she wants additional time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I had 2 minutes. I would be happy to
follow the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes be allocated to
the Senator from Texas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. We really need to do this. We voted after a full debate
this summer to give General Petraeus a chance, asked him to come back
and report in September. We voted 80 to 14 to fund the surge, and
General Petraeus came back with positive reports in September. But it
was early. We were not sure what was going to be the true trend. Since
September, the situation in Iraq has improved to a degree I did not
expect possible. The casualties are down two-thirds from earlier in the
summer. It appears al-Qaida is completely on the run. Great progress
has been made. It is unthinkable at this point, after all we have been
through, the difficult times we had this summer, when progress is being
made clearly, indisputably, that we would now jerk the rug out from
under our soldiers. We have to do this. We need Senator Reid to quit
saying we are losing and quit saying this is not working, while our
soldiers are making progress. How demoralizing is that?
I urge my colleagues to vote to support our troops at this critical
point as we are making progress.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the bridge
bill that was sent over by the House of Representatives. I hope the
Senate can do what the Senate has been doing all year, and that is stop
these reckless amendments that would tie the hands of our generals,
that would dictate policy on the ground in Iraq from 6,000 miles away,
from people who do not know what is going on on the ground, it seems.
We have voted 40 times in the last year, since February, on amendments
that would constrain the troops in the field doing what they are doing.
Last week the Iraqi Government and U.S. commanders proclaimed that al-
Qaida had been routed in every neighborhood in Baghdad, an 80-percent
drop in the murder rate. The BBC reports that all across Baghdad
streets are springing back to life, shops and restaurants which closed
down are back in business. People are walking on the streets. Things
have changed in Baghdad. Things have changed in Iraq. The only place it
doesn't seem to change is in the Congress. We should not vote on
anything that underfunds the troops, which is what this bridge bill
does, and overregulates what our troops in the field are doing when we
are not there every day, day in, day out, watching the progress.
General Petraeus is succeeding in quelling the violence. Now we must
work with the Iraqis to have stability in that country so we can leave.
General Petraeus has already said he is bringing home a brigade from
the surge. We are going in the right direction. Let's don't do
something foolish in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota is
recognized for 1 minute 45 seconds.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I also want to urge my colleagues to pass
the $70 billion supplemental for the Department of Defense. The
McConnell alternative is a funding bill that is free of
[[Page S14585]]
political posturing, not influenced by armchair generals. The
Department of Defense needs this money, and they need it now.
Yesterday, Secretary Geren and General Casey testified before the Armed
Services Committee on the state of the Army. When I asked Secretary
Geren about what effect the lack of funding was having on the Army, he
was frank and clear. The Army will run out of money by February and,
what is worse, they will have to start scaling back services and
canceling important civilian contracts. Moreover, when the President
signed the Defense appropriations bill, it stopped the department's
funding under the current continuing resolution. Now the Army is being
forced to borrow from its operations and maintenance accounts in its
base budget. The Army O&M budget is about $27 billion. Since the Army
spends about $6.5 billion a month, that money will be gone by February.
We are forcing our Army to borrow against itself.
General Casey testified that in the December timeframe nine brigades
are coming back from Iraq, and they may return to find services that
supported them have been cancelled. Last, when we passed a timely
supplemental bill, the Army depots were able to reset 27 brigades,
process 123,000 large vehicles, and 10,000 humvees.
Democrats are always going to paint Iraq as a failure, no matter what
gains have been made. We need to support our troops and make sure they
have the funding to do their job.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized for 1 minute 45 seconds.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to frame the issue the way it
deserves. It is going to be hard hitting. Senator Reid told me
something one time, that we shouldn't run the Congress down. I
generally agree with that except here. What we are about to do is take
one of the most successful military operations in American history by
any measure, the surge, and undercut it by one of the most
dysfunctional Congresses in American history, by denying the funding to
the troops in the field who have performed.
The House bill would replace military commanders with a dysfunctional
Congress that is being led around by its nose by Code Pink and
moveon.org, who don't understand success on the battlefield. All they
see is the next election, the potential for an ad. Listen to the
inflammatory rhetoric.
We are not going to allow the dysfunctional Congress to replace a
successful commander. We are not going to send the message to our
enemies: You are back into the fight. We are not going to tell our
troops: You are a loser; you don't get any more money. We are not going
to tell our allies and the brave Iraqis who have jumped on our side
that we are leaving. This is ridiculous. It is undercutting America's
vital national security interests, and it is telling our soldiers: You
are losers--when they are winners. We are going to defeat it now and
forever.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the comments
made by my colleague, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. It is
important to recognize why we are in the procedural predicament we find
ourselves in today. This predicament is not based on the Senate
Agriculture Committee's inability to come together to protect and
enhance our most basic national security interest--food security. We
have successfully done that with a bill supported unanimously by the
committee--across partisan and regional divide.
To be clear, this is a problem of including, in a farm bill, other
extraneous issues that have little to do with agriculture policy. I
don't fault the decision to go down this path of including tax-related
provisions in the farm bill. It was decided early on. However, we must
recognize the full implications of this decision. Indeed, one only need
look at what occurred in the other body to see how a bipartisan process
can completely disintegrate when other issues are injected into the
farm bill debate.
Tax debates are always difficult and the inclusion of tax-related
provisions in a piece of legislation has never been known to simplify
the legislative process. In this instance, however, as much as I regret
its impact on the farm bill, it is simply necessary to allow for debate
on the tax-related provisions included in the Food and Energy Security
Act of 2007.
I am confident we will work through these difficulties. I am grateful
that my colleagues on the Finance Committee were able to avoid the
problems created by the inclusion of the Ways and Means provisions in
the underlying House bill. However, the tax-related provisions included
in the underlying Senate bill have nonetheless complicated our process
and we must recognize, accept, and work through the process in a
deliberative and responsible manner.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first I want to congratulate the Senator
from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for
their leadership in the Agriculture Committee and for bringing to the
Senate a bipartisan farm bill that works for many family farmers.
I hope this hard work will not be endangered by an amendment that
will adversely affect family farms in some States by eliminating the
ability for family farms to receive financing, or will prevent farmers
from efficiently markting their crop. Since the passage of the 2002
Farm Bill there has been a good bit of controversy surrounding the
issue of payment limits. Much of this has been based on misinformation
and is a result of misunderstanding agriculture practices. While I am
pleased that the legislation passed by the committee contains
significant reforms to address the concerns raised over the past 6
years, I want to be very clear that these reforms are not easy for
producers in my State of Mississippi to accept and will result in many
farms having to significantly alter their farming operation. I would
like to give an example of how unfair this amendment is to crops grown
in the South. Under the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, a cotton and rice
farmer in Mississippi could only grow 400 acres of cotton or 225 acres
of rice before they reach the limit. In comparison, a soybean and corn
farmer in North Dakota could farm 2,000 acres of soybeans or 1,300
acres of corn before they hit the limit.
I believe it is important for my Senate colleagues to understand just
how significant the reforms in the committee-passed bill are. This
legislation applies direct attribution to the individual farmer, thus
making all farm payments transparent. The committee-passed legislation
would limit the direct payment a single producer can receive to
$40,000. The legislation reduces the amount of a counter-cyclical
payment to $60,000. In addition, the Senate language reduces the
Adjusted Gross Income means test for producers from $2.5 million all
the way down to $750,000. While this may still sound like a lot of
money, when you consider production costs such as $400,000 cotton
picker, fuel prices, fertilizer costs, and technology fees for seed,
these levels are quite low.
Many crops of the Midwest are enjoying record prices right now due
mostly to the use of corn in the current ethanol boom. The most
prevalent crops in the South, cotton and rice, are not seeing the
record prices created by the billions of dollars in renewable fuel
incentives and tax credit subsidies, and it is important to point out
that none of these subsidies is subject to an arbitrary limit.
Agriculture is the economic engine for rural communities located
throughout Mississippi. These communities are dependent on family farms
to provide the economic activity that generates millions of dollars in
tax revenue and thousands of jobs. While we encourage small businesses
to grow and prosper in this country, this amendment is telling our
family farmers they will be punished if they do the same. The amendment
offered by my friends from Iowa and North Dakota would have a very
negative impact on a region of this country that already suffers from
severe economic depression.
This amendment would have a very negative impact on the livelihood of
thousands of farmers. It would undo what many farmers today and
generations before them have established through hard work, surviving
natural disasters, and even the Great Depression. This amendment is an
attempt to drive farmers in my State to conform to the way others
operate in very different regions of the country. Not every farmer fits
in the same mold, and I ask my colleagues to vote against the Grassley-
Dorgan Amendment.
[[Page S14586]]
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we consider the farm bill, I am proud
to say that Vermont is leading the Nation in developing programs to
bring fresh, local foods to school cafeterias.
Let me begin by recounting the experience of Burlington, VT, which
has been replicated in other cities and towns across our State. Five
years ago, residents of the city expressed concern about the
significant nutritional issues facing the city's children. Twenty
percent of the city's children were living in poverty, food insecurity
was widespread, and the rate of childhood obesity was steadily
increasing. In response, citizens called for an increased commitment to
healthy food choices for children and their families.
At the same time, they were aware of the need to promote the local
farm economy. So in the fall of 2003, with a U.S. Department of
Agriculture grant, the Burlington School Food Project was created.
The program brings fresh foods from local farms to school cafeterias
and provides hands-on agricultural education in the classroom. Students
at the ten schools in this program are now eating foods that are
healthier, more nutritious and from all the reports I have heard,
better tasting.
The program also involves students in the process of harvesting,
preparing and even taste-testing their own food. This has helped many
young Vermonters learn about where food comes from, helping them
connect with their local farms and community.
After 4 years of the project's existence, the Burlington school
district now prepares 930,000 meals annually using fresh and local
produce. Several schools offer salad bars either as a full lunch or as
a side item to hot lunches. This has led to better diets and improved
health.
The project has also been impressive from an economic standpoint.
Last year, for instance, more than 1,000 pounds of local tomatoes, 600
pounds of local zucchini, 600 pounds of carrots and 400 pounds of local
basil were used in school meals. The amount of local produce purchased
tripled between 2003 and 2006.
Many partners have built upon these successes. Today, I would like to
mention two driving forces.
Bonnie Acker, a school parent, took it upon herself to do whatever
necessary to improve the quality of the food being served at her
child's school. She worked with teachers, students, volunteers, and
cafeteria workers at Edmunds Middle School. This school has become a
model for others, its cafeteria has been transformed, and its school
gardens are rich with color.
The director of the Burlington School Food Service, Doug Davis,
provided much of the leadership needed to make BSFP work. When he was
approached by parents like Bonnie, he listened. He then immediately
took action and spearheaded an effort to buy whole grain breads for the
cafeterias. Doug also introduced initiatives such as taste tests and
classrooms linked to the cafeteria. Before long, Burlington students
were trying new foods and getting healthier lunches. For his efforts,
Doug was presented the Northeast award as Food Service Director of the
Year.
But Burlington is not alone. Other Vermont school districts have
undertaken similar programs, among them:
Brattleboro Elementary Schools, which won a Vermont Farm to School
grant to set up a program to promote local food purchasing, taste
testing seasonal foods, and to get students to farms for hands-on
agricultural experiences. Sheila Humphreys coordinates the program, and
Laura White has been a major force in its success.
Waitsfield Elementary worked with VT FEED on local purchasing and
developing a food, farm and nutrition curriculum. Key figures in this
effort have been school nurse Sue Dillon, as well as George Schenk of
American Flatbread, who has been a strong and supportive community
member raising money for Waitsfield and other schools.
Orleans Essex North Supervisory Union, where three elementary schools
have comprehensive farm to school programs that include local
purchasing, school gardening, taste testing of seasonal products,
harvest celebrations with farmers and the communities, field studies
with students on farms, and the development of farm and food-based
classroom activities.
Sharon Elementary School also worked with VT FEED for 3 years
developing a food, farm, and nutrition curriculum. Its principal,
Sheila Moran, along with teacher Keenan Haley and food service director
Lynn Ann Perry, have been instrumental in weaving farm to school into
their school culture.
Ferrisburgh Elementary School has involved high school students to do
field studies on farms, make a school garden, purchase more local foods
and taste-test them, try new recipes using local foods, and have a
farmers' market harvest festival for their community.
In addition, Hardwick Elementary School has worked with VT FEED on
combining food, farm, and nutrition into the existing curricula,
planting crops on farms for school use, and making healthy snacks. Val
Simmons, its food service director, has led the effort to reconnect
students and school food to the local farms.
Salisbury Elementary School takes students to local farms for field
studies and does local food taste testing in classrooms. Here, teacher
Diane Benware and food service director Gaye Truax have been prime
movers.
On a larger scale, the Food Works' Farm-to-Table program, based in
Montpelier, serves as a nonprofit distributor of produce from 18 area
farms, delivering the produce throughout the year to 13 schools in
central Vermont. In 2007 alone, more than $50,000 of local produce has
been purchased and distributed through Farm-to-Table. Rick Hungerford,
food service director at the U-32 High School in East Montpelier, is
now sourcing nearly 14 percent of cafeteria purchases locally while
turning a profit and preparing outstanding, healthy food for the entire
school community. Ann Gilbert and Liz Scharf, two parents from Rumney
Elementary School in Middlesex, spearheaded a grassroots effort to
connect their school with local farms, in particular to purchase year-
round from local grower Joe Buley, who is new to farming and has
invested in greenhouse production so he can sell to schools.
Finally, let me recognize Vermont Food Education Every Day, VT FEED,
which uses a community-based approach to school food system change and
is the product of a collaboration of three Vermont nonprofits: Food
Works, Northeast Organic Farming Association of VT, and Shelburne
Farms. It does fine work in building connections between classrooms,
cafeterias, local farms, and communities. It is most ably directed by
Abbie Nelson and Kim Norris. It has also had strong cooperation from Jo
Busha, the State Director of the Vermont Department of Education Child
Nutrition Program, in introducing the farm to school concept to many
school food service directors.
And this is just the beginning. With strong provisions in the farm
bill for beginning farmers, increased funding for fruits and vegetables
for schools, and an innovative pilot to work on community gardens in
high-poverty schools, I expect Vermont's trailblazing efforts to expand
not only in our State, but across the Nation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will oppose the motion to proceed to both
the Senate and House bills to provide bridge funding to Iraq because
they do not contain firm and enforceable dates to get our troops out of
Iraq.
Once again, Congress is being asked to pour tens of billions of
dollars more into an unending war, for uncertain goals, carried forward
by little more than a mixture of blind faith and inertia.
Once again, the American people are being asked to shut their eyes
tight against the facts and trudge blindly on--this time at the cost of
some $50 or $70 billion, depending on which bill we are talking about,
and who knows how many more lives. And once again, those who question
this war--a majority of Americans--are being asked: You support the
troops, don't you?
How could we not? How could we not be awed by the bravery and
sacrifice of our men and women in Iraq? How could we not be inspired by
their choice to volunteer in the first place? How could we not be
impressed by the discipline, competence, intelligence, and
resourcefulness with which General Petraeus and the soldiers under his
command have fought in Iraq? They deserve our respect and much more.
But contrary to what the President's supporters would have you
believe, the
[[Page S14587]]
debate does not end there. It begins there. And I have come to the
floor today to suggest that the President's supporters would do well to
heed key military virtues: recognizing the difference between tactics
and strategy--between short term and long term.
All the tactical brilliance in the world will win you nothing if it
doesn't find its place within a larger plan for victory. And in Iraq,
that plan is exactly where we found it in the spring of 2003--
nonexistent.
No one in this Chamber would doubt that recent months in Iraq have
seen significant tactical success. The number of IED explosions has
dropped significantly.
The total number of enemy attacks, and the number of coalition
soldiers killed in action, have been in decline--even though 2007
recently became the deadliest year on record for U.S. troops in Iraq.
Iraqi civilian casualties have been cut from a high of 3,000 in the
month of December 2006--even though they still hover around an
appalling 1,000 per month.
But overall, the security picture in Iraq is, for the time being,
improved.
The question is: Why? What made that happen? If anything comes out of
this debate, it should be an honest answer to that question--not so we
can assign praise and blame but so we can piece together a coherent
strategy.
I don't doubt that our troops' dedication did its part to reduce the
violence. But if American agency was the sole factor, why was violence
in Iraq on the decline before the surge began--even before it was
announced? It is clear to me that there have been three deeper causes.
First, Moqtada al-Sadr, a prime mover of sectarian violence, has sat
out the surge, patiently waiting for its inevitable end. As The New
Yorker recently put it: ``Analysts credit much of the recent drop in
Iraqi civilian deaths not to the surge but to Sadr's decision, in
August, to order the Mahdi Army, which is believed to have been
responsible for much of the Shiite-on-Sunni sectarian killing in and
around Baghdad, to `freeze' its activities for six months.'' Sadr and
his fellow sectarian leaders may be brutal--but they are also
calculating and self-interested.
They know that the surge, whatever is decided here today, cannot be
physically sustained indefinitely.
Second, the drop in violence can also be attributed to the so-called
Sunni awakening: the decision by tribal leaders in Anbar Province to
turn against al-Qaida and foreign jihadists. That choice was laudable
and--as shown by Abu Risha, the charismatic tribal leader who allied
with America and was murdered for it--truly courageous.
But it was also unforeseen by the surge and began independently of
the surge. But as valuable and necessary as the fight against al-Qaida
in Iraq has been, it does little to stem the deeper civil war between
Sunnis and Shiites--the overwhelming source of Iraq's chaos.
The fight against al-Qaida must go on--but there's no reason why it
compels us to police a civil war.
Third and finally, many analysts have argued that violence has
bottomed out because Iraq's ethnic cleansing is reaching a conclusion--
because Iraq has, de facto, partitioned itself. With almost a million
Baghdadis fleeing their homes in the conflict, the city has become ever
more ethnically homogenous, reducing Sunni-Shiite flashpoints.
Each of these causes has contributed its part to what some are
intemperately hailing as our long-awaited victory. It would be
wonderful to believe that America made it happen, after all this time,
through sheer force of will. Every one of my colleagues, I am sure,
wants to believe that.
But this is the clear line running through this Chamber: between
those who want it to be true so desperately that they blind themselves
and those who understand that that kind of belief--the kind that calls
a proposition true because we want it to be true--is the kind that saw
an alliance between Saddam and al-Qaida, the kind that saw an Iraq full
of WMDs, the kind that saw a mission accomplished 4 years ago.
But still, even if you grant that belief, even if you say that the
surge, and nothing else, brought down the violence--is that our
victory?
No. The surge was always a military means to a political end.
Comptroller General David Walker put it well: ``The primary point of
the surge was to improve security . . . in order to provide political
breathing room'' for the Iraqi Government. President Bush has said much
the same. The surge was always meant to open a window for political
reconciliation. Nearly 800 Americans sacrificed their lives to keep
that window open; thousands and thousands of Americans took wounds to
keep that window open. What has the Iraqi Government done with it?
Failed to meet its own political benchmarks. Failed to enact oil
legislation. Sustained a mass resignation of Sunni politicians, leaving
more than half of its Cabinet seats vacant. Enjoyed a month-long
vacation.
This September, 60 percent of Iraqis--and 93 percent of Sunnis--
thought it was justified to kill American troops.
And during America's long sacrifice to keep civil war at bay, the
Maliki Government has grown more sectarian than ever, more and more
openly an arm of the Shiites, more and more actively prejudiced against
Sunnis. Hundreds of Americans died to give breathing space to Iraqi
politicians and they act as if Iraq doesn't exist.
Many of the Iraqi forces we have relied on to stabilize that country
are little more than retooled sectarian gangs. What is stopping them
from accepting our training, accepting our weapons, and then, as soon
as the surge dies down, jumping once again down each other's throats?
In the name of unity and reconciliation, our policies have divided
Iraq deeper and deeper, until, as George Washington University Middle
East expert Marc Lynch has argued, Iraq becomes ``a warlord state . . .
with power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes, and power-
brokers, with a purely nominal central state.''
That is Iraq with the surge in place. But President Bush has conceded
that it can't continue past July; and soon, we will be confronted by
Iraq without the surge. So I have a simple question for my colleagues
this morning:
What then?
And as President Bush tries to find an answer, as he tries to cobble
together a plan more than 4 years too late, our billions will continue
to be poured into a desert sinkhole; our Nation will earn the enmity of
more and more Muslims for our endless occupation; our military will be
ground into the dirt, unit by unit, machine by machine, soldier by
soldier; and young Americans will continue to die. And we will be not
an inch safer.
That is why I have come to the floor this morning: not to pass
judgment; not to score points; not to assign blame. But because as we
hurtle on with all tactics and no strategy, the costs are becoming too
heavy for us to bear.
There is only one realistic strategy, only one honest answer to: What
then? Redeploy our combat forces from Iraq, starting immediately.
Refocus the fight on al-Qaida, training those Iraqi forces we can
trust, and protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure. Rebuild our
worn-down, battered military.
Our troops will have my respect for what they have done in Iraq for
as long as I live. And I join President Bush in his fervent hope that
their sacrifice would be enough to heal a shattered country. But my
eyes are open. I know that the best hope for Iraq, and the best hope
for America, lies in redeployment--not in another $50 or $70 billion
poured down this hole. I have faith that time will open the eyes of
every one of my colleagues; I hope they will begin by seeing the deep
error of these bills.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 4156, a bill that
would link vital funding for our troops to a mandated timeline for
withdrawal from Iraq. Not only is this bill irresponsive to the facts
on the ground, it is irresponsible. Instead, we should approve S. 2340
and provide our military with the resources they require, free of
conditions that would undermine their ability to conduct operations and
build on their recent successes.
Today the Senate considers yet another bill mandating the withdrawal
of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, regardless of conditions on the ground
or the views of our commanders in the field. If this latest attempt
sounds familiar, it
[[Page S14588]]
should--the majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40
legislative attempts to limit the ability of the President and his
commanders to prosecute this war. And, just like the 40 votes that
preceded this one, the result of this vote will undoubtedly be the
same. The proponents of this legislation are well aware of this fact,
and the fact that the President has pledged to veto legislation calling
for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Rather than move beyond these
differences and ensure that our troops in the field receive the vital
funding they need, however, we will go through this exercise yet again.
This legislation would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces
within 30 days of enactment, leaving a smaller force authorized only to
carry out narrowly defined missions, with the goal of ending our
involvement, irrespective of the situation in Iraq, by December 15 of
next year. Given that similar provisions have failed 40 times already,
it is inconceivable that they would succeed now, when there is
unambiguous progress in Iraq. The choice today is simple: do we build
upon the clear successes of our current strategy and give General
Petraeus and the troops under his command the support they require to
complete their mission, or do we ignore the realities and legislate a
premature end to our efforts in Iraq, accepting thereby all the
terrible consequences that will ensue? The answer should be simple.
As we proceed with consideration of this bill, it is important to
spend a few moments reviewing the current state of affairs in Iraq. We
see today that, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, the situation
on the ground in Iraq shows tangible signs of progress. The forces
needed to implement General Petraeus's counterinsurgency plan have been
in place for over 6 months and our military, in cooperation with the
Iraqi security forces, continues to make significant gains in a number
of areas.
The second in command in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, stated earlier this
month that due to the recently implemented counterinsurgency
operations, ``we have been able to eliminate key safe havens, liberate
portions of the population and hamper the enemy's ability to conduct
coordinated attacks.'' General Odierno went on to add that ``we have
experienced a consistent and steady trend of increased security over
the last four months, and I believe continued aggressive operations by
both Iraqi and coalition forces are the most effective way to extend
our gains and continue to protect the citizens of Iraq.'' According to
a recent report issued by the Department of Defense, weekly IED attacks
have decreased by 60 percent across Iraq since the beginning of
Operation Phantom Thunder in mid-June.
The Associated Press reports that Iraqi civilian deaths have dropped
sharply as a result of the ``surge,'' from 1,791 in August to 750 in
October. Mortar attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest on
record since February of 2006, as were the number of ``indirect fire''
attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. The surge's success in
establishing greater security has spurred a great increase in
cooperation from Iraqi citizens, and MG Rick Lynch, commander of U.S.
forces south of Baghdad, said he believes the decrease in rocket and
mortar attacks will continue to hold because of a ``groundswell'' of
support from regular Iraqis. ``If we didn't have so many people coming
forward to help, I'd think [the decrease in attacks] is a flash in the
pan. But that's just not the case,'' General Lynch said.
We are all aware of the monumental strides our military has made in
restoring order and reducing violence in Anbar Province. A province
once declared ``lost'' to al-Qaida has begun a return to normalcy for
many of its inhabitants. Locals, sickened by the brutality of
insurgents and terrorists, have rejected violent extremism and have
cooperated with U.S. and Iraqi forces to take the fight to the enemy.
This partnership model combined with U.S. troops ``living forward'' is
being replicated and producing real results all across the country.
In Ghazaliya, for example, once known as a strategic gateway to
Baghdad for insurgents and a place where coalition convoys were
regularly ambushed, the creation of joint security stations has led to
a significant reduction in sectarian violence and IED attacks.
Amariyah, a neighborhood in western Baghdad that just 6 months ago was
a central operational location for al-Qaida in Iraq and plagued by high
levels of bombings and shootings, is beginning to see a drastic
reduction in violence and many residents are beginning to experience
some semblance of normal life. None of this is to argue that Baghdad or
other regions have suddenly become safe, or that violence has come down
to an acceptable level, or that victory lies just around the corner. On
the contrary, the road ahead remains, as it always has been, long and
hard. Violence is still at unacceptable levels in some parts of the
country, reconstruction of important infrastructure lags, and the
Maliki government remains unwilling to function as it must. No one can
guarantee success or be certain about its prospects, but, by the same
token, no one should dismiss the positive developments that have
resulted from this new strategy in Iraq.
Nor can we dismiss the enormous costs of American failure in Iraq.
Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the bill we
are currently considering become law, it would mark the end of this
long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous
withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a
new, more dangerous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our
disengagement. If we leave, we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in
many more desperate fights to protect our security and at an even
greater cost in American lives and treasure. Now is not the time for us
to lose our resolve. We must remain steadfast in our mission, for we do
not fight only for the interests of Iraqis, we fight for ours as well.
That means approving the support that our fighting men and women
need. The funding contained in this supplemental is not, as some have
characterized it, the ``President's money.'' This money is for the
troops. This funding is to provide them with the equipment and proper
training they require to fulfill their mission, funding to protect our
men and women from roadside bombs and other attacks, funding to enable
them to bring this war to a successful end. Holding our military's
funding hostage to a repetitive and futile attempt to score political
points is unconscionable.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England recently wrote to the
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee about the effects of
this legislation. ``Without this critical funding,'' he wrote, ``the
Department will have no choice but to deplete key appropriations
accounts by early next year. In particular, the Army's Operation and
Maintenance account will be completely exhausted in mid-to-late
January. This situation will result in a profoundly negative impact on
the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base operations, and
training activities.'' Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said just
yesterday that, should the money contained in this bill be withheld, he
will have to ``lay off 200,000 civilian employees and contractors,
terminate military contracts and partially shut down U.S. military
bases.'' Army Secretary Pete Green went on to add that without these
funds, the negative effects ``will fall most heavily on...home based
troops and their families.''
I have seen a lot during my time in the Senate, but few events sink
to the level of what we are witnessing today. I understand the
frustration that many feel after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. I
share their frustration and sadness. But we must remember to whom we
owe our allegiance. Not to short-term political gain, but to the
security of America, to those brave men and women who risk all to
ensure it, and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded. That
responsibility is our dearest privilege and to be judged by history to
have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so much more to
all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral
advantage or office. Let us not sacrifice the remarkable gains our
service men and women have made by engaging in a game of political
brinksmanship. There is far too much at stake.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, H.R. 4156, the House-passed bill
providing
[[Page S14589]]
bridge funding for the Iraq war, is unacceptably weak. While I will
support cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of that bill,
my vote should not be misinterpreted as a vote in favor of this bill.
By supporting cloture on the motion to proceed, I am voting in favor of
the Senate having the opportunity to debate and amend it. I have
already filed an amendment to the bill that consists of the Feingold-
Reid amendment offered to the Defense Department authorization bill
earlier this year. Unfortunately, it appears that the Republicans will
not even allow the Senate to have meaningful debate on a war that has
no end in sight and that does not have the backing of the American
people.
But Democrats aren't off the hook either. H.R. 4156 purports to
attach some strings to the funding it provides, but those strings are
so thin and pliable as to be virtually meaningless. Since Democrats
assumed control of Congress with a mandate from the American people, we
have made progress toward changing course in Iraq, and I have supported
efforts to increase pressure on this administration to listen to the
American people. At this point, giving the President money to continue
the war while only setting a ``goal'' for concluding the redeployment
of our troops is insufficient. I am afraid we are moving backwards, not
forward, with this new bill.
I spoke at some length yesterday about the administration's flawed
strategy in Iraq, so I will not repeat myself today. I will say,
however, that the administration's policy is indefensible. The American
people know that, which is why they voted the way they did in November.
They want us out of Iraq, and they want us out now. They don't want to
give the so-called ``surge'' time and they are right. The surge is a
delaying tactic, an effort to buy time. We can't afford to spend any
more time, or money, on a war that is hurting our own national
security. We must act and we must do it now.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a simple message this morning.
We need to get the funds to the troops, and we need to do it now. The
Secretary of Defense told us yesterday that the money for the Army and
Marine Corps will soon run out, that he will have to start writing pink
slips, tearing up contracts, and reducing missions at military bases.
If we don't approve these funds for training and supplies that are
needed to protect these brave men and women in the field, that is
exactly what will happen.
Are we about to deny all these supplies just as the successes of
General Petraeus's plan have become more clear? Attacks are down,
casualties are down, political cooperation is taking root at the local
level. We should not leave our forces in the field without the funding
they need to accomplish the mission for which they have been deployed.
The Pelosi bill, if it were to get to the President's desk, would be
vetoed, as was the supplemental bill sent to the President earlier this
year that contained a withdrawal date. We need to get our troops
everything they need, and we need to get it to them now.
The Farm Bill
A word about the farm bill. We all know we are going to pass a farm
bill. Any suggestion to the contrary is laughable. I am disappointed
that the majority has filed cloture on the bill. I am even more
disappointed that from the get-go, the parliamentary device of filling
up the tree was used on a 1,600-page bill so that one Member of the
Senate could dictate to everybody else what amendments would be
allowed, if any. This is not the way to go forward.
I am not sure how the majority defines wide-open debate, but this is
certainly a no-amendments process which is stunningly observed in a
body that has passed a number of farm bills over the years. As I
mentioned on the first day of floor consideration, we have been down
this road before.
During the last farm bill, when the Democrats were in the majority,
then-Leader Daschle attempted to limit amendments. He failed three
times. I am going to confidently predict today that this unfair
procedural tactic is going to fail again. In 2002, after the majority
finally agreed to an open-amendment process, final passage of the farm
bill occurred fairly quickly--about a week. So we went through a
somewhat similar dance. The tree was not filled, but there was
premature cloture filed. Cloture was defeated several times. When the
games stopped, we went back to the farm bill. We had an open process
for a week and passed it.
We would probably be passing the farm bill today had we not used this
process last week. We could have gone through the amendment process and
worked our way through it and gotten to final passage. On today,
instead of defeating cloture after an unfair process for 10 days, we
could have been and would have been sending a farm bill on to
conference with the House had we employed an open process which the
Senate almost always insists upon. The farm bill will not pass today
because the games have not stopped. But I will confidently predict at
some point they will stop. We will have an open process and, in about a
week, we will get a farm bill and get a conference and do the important
work we need to do for America's farmers.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, whatever time runs past 9:30, I will use
leader time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leader has that right.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the farm bill, what has happened these
past 10 days is extraordinarily wrong and negative. Today the
Republicans have a decision to make: Are they going to allow the farm
bill to proceed? Everyone out there from all over this country who is
concerned about the farm bill, I want their eyes directed toward the
Republican votes cast on this today. If they try to hide under some
procedural nonsense, it is outlandish.
If cloture is invoked on the farm bill, there would be 30 hours of
offering relevant amendments. Isn't that enough? Is it necessary that
we have a farm bill where we debate immigration again; where we debate
foreign policy, including the Iraq war; medical malpractice? The answer
is no.
Iraq
I would like to travel back in time, 10 months past, January 10,
2007, the exact date. In that second week of 2007, America was reaching
the fourth full year of the war in Iraq, still without clear purpose,
plan, or Presidential leadership. President Bush had faced a stinging
rejection of his Iraq strategy by the votes in November. That is an
understatement. He had fired his Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld,
much too late, but he did fire him. Republicans in the House and Senate
were publicly and privately breaking ranks with his strategy. The
demand and imperative to change course and end the war were clear. For
the first time in his Presidency, there was real reason to believe he
would heed the call for change. But on that day in January, the
President did just the opposite. He called for a surge of forces in
Iraq, not a responsible transition out of combat, not a refocus on the
war on terror, but a plan to sink us further into the intractable Iraqi
civil war.
What were the goals of that surge? Here are the President's own
words:
The strategy I announced in January is . . . aimed at
helping the Iraqis strengthen their government so that it can
function even amid violence.
It seeks to open space for Iraq's political leaders to
advance the difficult process of national reconciliation,
which is essential to lasting security and stability.
Fast-forward to today, 10 months later. It is indisputable that the
goals of the surge have failed. As we speak, there are 187,500 American
troops in Iraq. The Iraqi Parliament created eight benchmarks for
progress toward national reconciliation. These benchmarks were passed
by this Congress on a bipartisan basis and signed by the President.
According to an independent analysis by the General Accounting Office,
the watchdog of Congress, and this country, only one and a half of
eight legislative benchmarks have been achieved. By any standard, even
the math of the Republicans, that is a failing grade.
Iraq, a country with huge natural resources, I can remember the first
time I met with Iraqi leaders right back here in then-Senator Frist's
office. We were told by the Iraqi President that he disagreed with the
international assumption that Iraq had the second
[[Page S14590]]
largest supply of oil in the world. He said: We have the largest supply
of oil in the world.
Why are we pouring the treasures of this country into a country with
the highest oil reserves in the world?
Without evidence of reconciliation, the Bush administration and its
allies are trying a new playbook--pointing to recent reductions in
violence. To be clear, any shift that makes conditions less dangerous
for our troops and the Iraqi people is welcome news. But take, for
example, what we read in the papers today. This past month, there were
``only'' 1,560 violent explosions with explosive devices in Iraq--
``only'' 1,560 in the last month. That is down from 3,200. Sounds like
a lot of violence to me.
We must not forget that 2007 has been the deadliest year for our
troops in the entire war. We must remember that about 3,900 Americans
have been killed. We must remember that tens of thousands have been
gravely wounded. According to the Joint Economic Council, more than $1
trillion already has been spent on the Iraq war. And 5 million Iraqi
men, women, and children have fled their neighborhoods or left the
country altogether--about half and half; half have left the country and
about 2\1/2\ million have been displaced--out of a total population of
about 27 million people.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S14590, November 16, 2007 the following appears: Mr.
REID. . . . more than $1 trillion already has been spent on the
Iraq war--$1.8 trillion to be exact. And 5 million Iraqi men,
women, and children . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: Mr. REID. . . .
more than $1 trillion already has been spent on the Iraq war. And
5 million Iraqi men, women, and children . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
With these staggering costs and political reconciliation nowhere in
sight, how would the President honestly judge his troop surge? We know
how General Petraeus rates it. In a letter to the troops he wrote:
One of the justifications of the surge, after all, was that
it would help create the space for Iraqi leaders to tackle
the tough questions and agree on key pieces of national
reconciliation legislation. It has not worked out as we had
hoped.
General Petraeus.
And why has reconciliation failed?
Yesterday's Washington Post reported the alarm among our military
leaders that it is clear the Iraqis are simply not doing their part.
Quoting from one article:
U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the
Iraqi government's failure to capitalize on sharp declines in
attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. . . .
The lack of political progress calls into question the core
rationale behind the troop buildup President Bush announced
in January, which was premised on the notion that improved
security would create space for Iraqis to arrive at new
power-sharing agreements.
Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly; and our treasury
continues to be depleted rapidly--for a peace we seem far more
interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders--a peace we
want. The Iraqi leaders do not seem to want one.
Meanwhile, the hidden costs of the war are only growing. Our military
is stretched nearly to a breaking point, which has prompted Secretary
Colin Powell to say: ``The army is [nearly] broken.''
New evidence emerges every day that President Bush's obsession with
Iraq has come at the expense of Afghanistan, once viewed as a success.
Now the opium trade in that country is at an all-time high. Ninety-
three percent of the world's opium this year is coming from
Afghanistan. Think of the misery around the world that it has created.
Violence is at its highest since the American intervention in
Afghanistan, and it was reported yesterday that the Taliban has vastly
stepped up its efforts.
Meanwhile, bin Laden is still free, taunting and threatening us with
videotapes, and his al-Qaida network--according to the Bush
administration's own intelligence--has regrouped and is stronger than
ever.
We need to look no further than the crisis in Pakistan as a reminder
that the world can change overnight, and our ability to respond nimbly
to new challenges is essential.
Are we prepared to do so? General Casey, head of the Army, a few
weeks ago, said this:
The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable
supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the
current fight, and are unable to provide ready forces as
rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies.
The evidence--from General Casey, from Secretary Powell, from the
General Accounting Office, and from constant news reports--is
indisputable. Yet President Bush has demanded another $200 billion with
no accountability at all.
But the choice is ours. Those of us who think the answer in Iraq is
more of the same should approve the President's request. If you think
we should simply stay the course, approve the President's request. But
if you think it is time to turn the page and take a responsible path
out of Iraq, approve the bridge fund bill that came from the House.
We will never turn away from our courageous troops.
A couple of days ago, we sent a bill to the President that he signed
for $470 billion. People are out here now, after Secretary Gates has
gone and talked to the President, saying we need the money tomorrow. We
talked to Secretary Gates on Wednesday. On Wednesday, he said the Army
is OK until the end of February, the Marines are OK until the middle of
March. But he went on to say: If we have to start doing layoffs, we are
going to go to the union members first. Everybody listen to that. The
Secretary of Defense said: If we have to start laying people off, we
are going to go to the union members first.
Does that speak of this administration, their despicable attitude
toward men and women who work hard, and by a chance to improve their
lot they are union members--they are going to get laid off first--when
they got, 3 days ago, $470 billion that, we were told on Wednesday,
would take the Army until the end of February and the Marines until the
middle of March?
This bill requires the President to start bringing these troops home
so they can get the heroes' welcome they so bravely have earned.
Our bill sets a reasonable goal for the end of combat operations, and
it finally ensures that the President will be accountable to the
Congress and to the people.
I urge all my colleagues to support this fair and reasonable
legislation we received from the House of Representatives.
Finally, let me say this. The vote the Republicans are having us take
is totally unnecessary. Yesterday, when the minority leader requested a
vote on his motion to proceed, my staff told him he could offer his
proposal to the House appropriations bill. He chose to ignore that and,
instead, made the unusual motion to proceed by a minority--by a
minority leader--so not only is this vote unnecessary, it is totally
meaningless. It is a motion to proceed to a Senate appropriations bill.
Let me repeat that it is a motion to proceed to a Senate
appropriations bill. Everyone knows, even in elementary school, that
under our Constitution revenue bills must originate in the House of
Representatives. So even if the Senate were to pass his bill, the House
would refuse to act on it. This would be the case regardless of which
party controls the House of Representatives.
The Republicans, when they controlled the House, also upheld their
constitutional role in the appropriations process, and rightfully so.
The only way to get the troops their funding is to act on the House-
passed appropriations bill. Anything else is political posturing and
does nothing to get the troops their needed funding.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4156
In order to give the minority leader his vote, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4156--
that is the House-passed bill--and that immediately after the clerk
reports the bill, the minority leader be recognized to offer his bill
as an amendment; that there be 1 hour for debate on his amendment, and
that the Senate vote on his amendment upon the use or yielding back of
time, with 60 votes needed to pass his amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. ALEXANDER. On behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
cloture motion
Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the
[[Page S14591]]
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a
close debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2340, a bill
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2008.
Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker, Wayne
Allard, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski, Orrin Hatch, Richard Burr,
Trent Lott, Mike Crapo, Pat Roberts, Chuck Grassley,
Jon Kyl, Norm Coleman, Mel Martinez.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 2340, a bill making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 410 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lieberman
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Warner
NAYS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Lott
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
53. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
____________________