[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 31841-31855]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 31842]]

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 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

[[Page 31843]]

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 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

[[Page 31844]]

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.
  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

[[Page 31845]]

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 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.)

[[Page 31846]]


  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 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

[[Page 31847]]

           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 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

[[Page 31848]]

           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 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

[[Page 31849]]

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.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we consider the farm bill, I am proud 
to say that Vermont is leading the Nation

[[Page 31850]]

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

[[Page 31851]]

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 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

[[Page 31852]]

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 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

[[Page 31853]]

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 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:


[[Page 31854]]

       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 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.
  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.

[[Page 31855]]

  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 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.

                          ____________________