Floor Statements

Madam President, today I rise to acknowledge the very special and meaningful contributions of Ms. Heideh Shahmoradi, who is departing the U.S. Senate after serving as detailee for some 4 years from the Department of Transportation. I come to the floor today to thank personally Heideh for her assistance and professionalism as a detailee to me on both the Environment and Public Works, EPW, Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

In my former position as chair of the EPW's Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Heideh provided me with invaluable advice and help in the development and passage of the highway reauthorization legislation, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: or SAFETEA. Heideh played a key role in helping the committee understand the complexities and implications of SAFETEA which helped to ensure that the final legislation properly balanced these very complex policy and funding issues. And as a program expert from the Department, Heideh was able to provide valuable insights on the potential impact of the legislation on highway transportation activities. Heideh not only contributed significantly in analyzing the legislation but she also performed important duties, such as research, fact-checking, editing, and drafting report language and legislation. Heideh did it all with distinction and unflappable good humor.

Her skills and performance on working on the EPW Committee made it an easy decision to bring her back from the Department to help me on the Appropriations Committee. Heideh not only continued to assist me on the Federal-aid highway programs on the Senate Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, but she also quickly became a resource and expert on all of the other modes under the Department of Transportation.

Throughout her tenure on Capitol Hill, Heideh provided technical expertise and programmatic knowledge that was critical in policymaking decisions on both the authorizing and appropriations committees. Her ability to provide a reality check on legislation helped tremendously in protecting the best interests of our communities and

taxpayers. She is simply a true professional civil servant that we are fortunate to have in government.

Finally, Heideh is a quick study, adaptable, very good at working with others, and cool under pressure. She also is a person of absolute integrity, honor, and loyalty. To their credit, the leadership at the Department of Transportation has recognized her accomplishments and skills and will be giving her new challenges and opportunities. Her departure is a great loss to the Appropriations Committee and to my office in particular. She will be missed. I strongly commend Heideh for her service to me and the U.S. Senate and, while she is leaving us, she will always be part of the Bond office team. I personally wish Heideh, her husband Torrance, and her son Corey all the best.

Mr. President, our job in this body right now for all of us is to fight and win the war that radical Islam terrorists have declared upon us.

As I see it, Congress has three choices. First, Congress can and should provide the money it needs to support the troops. That is the only proper choice. There is money in this supplemental for additional mine-resistant armored protection vehicles--vehicles the Army reports will reduce casualties by 70 percent. Each day this Congress neglects to fund the troops and pass a bill that can be signed into law is an additional day our troops are without that protection.

Second, if you want to stop this war, Congress can vote to cut off funding. However, doing so would tell the troops that even though 77 Members of this body said we should fight this war to keep America safe, we would now be telling all of our brave men and women in Iraq, their families, and the families of those who gave their lives, we did not mean it, that we did not want to finish this job, and that when the going gets tough, America gets going--out. We will tell America we are no longer concerned about keeping our homeland safe from a new 9/11, about denying al-Qaida the safe haven it has declared it is seeking in Iraq to prepare for new attacks on America. While that choice is deadly wrong, it is an honest choice under the constitutional power given to the Congress.

Third, and most deplorable, Congress is delaying the funds by forcing vote after vote, while attempting to score political points, and trying to micromanage the war, even though war management is the President's constitutional responsibility.

Most sadly, this is the course of action the Democratic leadership has chosen--a course that will result in ``death by a thousand cuts.''

Those who are attempting to end the war precipitously, politically, because they think it will score them seats in Congress or perhaps even the White House, are putting polls and politics ahead of our national security. Democratic leaders have stated they intend to pick up seats as a result of what they have referred to as a lost war. These comments were not just broadcast here in the United States; this talk about war loss was picked up and broadcast gleefully by al-Jazeera to our enemies and the world.

The Los Angeles Times has reported a top House Democrat has said: Our goal is to keep giving them--Republicans--votes on Iraq.

The article goes on to say:

Democratic strategists also believe that repeated votes on

the war will allow the party to expand its congressional

majorities in next year's elections by continuing to link GOP

lawmakers with the President and his war policies.

I am sure our troops in the field appreciate very much that some of the Democratic leadership are working to win the war--not the war against our sworn enemies blowing up our troops and killing Iraqi children who rely on

our protection but against fellow Americans in coming elections. Where is their strategy to win, to leave Iraq a stable and safe country?

As I have said, the other side's leadership, by embracing a policy of repeated votes and delaying funding, is denying our troops the resources they need. Their enemy should be al-Qaida and its murderous insurgents, not the President and Republican opponents.

Substituting Congress for General Petraeus's leadership and telling him how to run a war from 8,000 miles away is a disaster. General Petraeus is executing a new plan, a plan essentially recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, which last fall our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said we should follow. But now even if some generals in Congress think they are smarter than General Petraeus and can devise in legislation a better plan, which I strongly doubt, I am very doubtful they can adjust that plan to conditions on the battlefield. This is a sad reflection of how vested the Democratic leaders are in defeat--defeat for President Bush but defeat for our troops and our safety in Iraq.

Congress attempts to put artificial political timetables on the management of the war and does nothing to accomplish the mission. The Baker-Hamilton commission explicitly rejected timetables for withdrawal, because they recognized--the bipartisan group recognized-- it was a disaster, and many Democratic leaders have previously stated a legislative timetable, laying out this strategy in legislation, is absolutely unacceptable. What the political timetable does is give al- Qaida the encouragement and information it needs to know when and where and how to attack our troops.

This January, in open session, leaders of our intelligence community came before the Senate Intelligence Committee to answer questions about establishing a political withdrawal and the consensus was alarming.

I understand I had 7 minutes.

Mr. President, the intelligence community said withdrawing forces before we can provide security will result in chaos: more killing among Iraqis, an al-Qaida safe haven, and a possible regionwide declaration of war.

We need a political solution in Iraq, not in Washington, to allow the leaders in the national unity government to come together, but to get that, we need to repel the terrorists, we need to rebuild the Iraqi security forces. What won't help General Petraeus is direction from armchair generals in Congress.

What I would say to those who want to direct the war is: If you want to run it, you will own it. When a newly revitalized al-Qaida carries out a renewed 9/11 scale attack, you will own that one, too.

Mr. President, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their families at home will remember that. I suggest we support our troops.

As my colleagues know, I hail proudly from the Show-Me-State.

If all of the rhetoric in Washington about supporting the troops is true and I suspect it is, then I suggest that the Congress show our troops that we do support them, get them the funds and give them a chance to succeed.

Comments like ``The war is lost'' do not help our troops, but they do embolden the enemy.

Our actions should inspire our troops and the millions of Iraqi citizens who actually trust that Americans will not embrace defeat.

Our action should not be one that inspires al-Qaida and the murderous insurgents.

We should not pass legislation that provides our enemy the clear path to their victory, a victory which some in this body have already awarded them.

Mr. President, in today's global economy, continued progress in math, science, and engineering, and the transfer of this knowledge, is vital if the U.S. is to maintain its competitiveness and keep good-paying, cutting-edge jobs here at home. New products, processes, industries and future employment opportunities depend on the advances in research and their movement into the marketplace.

Missouri is a leader in a field of science that hardly existed 20 years ago--biotechnology. And I want Missouri to continue to be a leader in producing the best math and science minds in the country. How do we do that? One of our toughest educational challenges is helping our young people perform better in science and math.

We know that America's fourth graders and eighth graders are performing above the international average in math and science. But when they get to high school, they fall behind.

We need to do more. That is why I am pleased to support the America COMPETES Act, which strengthens educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics from elementary through graduate school, with a particular focus on math and science teachers. In addition, this bill makes a bold Federal investment in basic science research at the National Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

As many of you know, I have been a strong supporter of NSF over the

years. NSF plays a critical role in the economic, scientific and intellectual growth of this Nation. It is one of our primary tools in meeting the global challenges of the 21st century by pushing the boundaries of scientific research and technology. NSF's work will give us a better insight into the world around us. This work will grow our economy and speed innovation, improving the quality of life for all people.

NSF's impact over the past half century has been monumental, especially in the field of medical technologies and research. The investments have also spawned not only new products, but also entire industries, such as biotechnology, Internet providers, e-commerce, and geographic information systems. Medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have occurred, and cannot now improve to the next level of proficiency, without underlying knowledge from NSF-supported work in biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences.

New NSF support for research in nanotechnology, high-speed computing, plant genome research, biocomplexity, and cognitive neuroscience will further advance the state of technological change and improve our quality of life through creation of new products, a better understanding of how humans behave, and how our ecological systems can survive.

Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not always adequately supported NSF and the physical sciences with the dollars it deserves. While the Congress and the current and past Administration has strongly supported the life sciences, the physical sciences have been left behind. This has resulted in a major funding disparity between the life sciences and the physical sciences. This funding imbalance is alarming because it directly jeopardizes our Nation's ability to lead the world in scientific innovation. Further, we jeopardize the work of the National Institutes of Health because we are undermining the physical sciences, which provide the underpinning for medical technological advances.

Inadequate funding for NSF also hurts our economy and the creation of good jobs. In recent years, there has been an outcry of outsourcing jobs to other countries. And, our high-tech industry has been struggling to fill high-tech positions with American born workers. The best remedy to this issue is not protectionism but investing in the education and skills of our future workforce. This means better math and science education and technological skills, such as computer literacy. This is also a major part of NSF's mission.

My good friend Senator Barbara Mikulski and I, along with many of my other colleagues, were pioneers in the fight to double the funding of NSF. Thanks to this effort we increased funding for NSF significantly; however, we fell short of our goal to double funding. The bill before us today provides an important opportunity to refocus attention on this critical goal and I am pleased that this bill puts us on the path to double NSF funding. It is critical that doubling funding for NSF remain one of our highest priorities and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I hope we can do our part.

Future job and economic growth in the areas of health care, life sciences, defense, agriculture and transportation is directly related to scientific advancement. For these reasons it is important to support the America COMPETES Act and make an important investment in the economic security and growth of our country.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, for over 50 years, Thomas W. Burns, MD, and Joan F. Burns have served the University of Missouri-Columbia with great distinction. To honor this service, on April 27, 2007, the university will dedicate the Thomas W. and Joan F. Burns Center for Diabetes and Cardiovascular Research at the University of Missouri- Columbia School of Medicine.

Thomas W. Burns was one of the founding faculty members of MU's medical center, which opened in 1956 and graduated its first class of physicians in 1957. Since then, hundreds of physicians who trained under him have gone on to lead distinguished careers in medical care, education and research. MU's medical center has treated hundreds of thousands of patients from Missouri and beyond.

Dr. Burns has been a pioneer in endocrinology and contributed greatly to MU's national reputation in diabetes care, prevention, and research. Dr. Burns was a key architect in establishing MU's Cosmopolitan International Diabetes and Endocrinology Center and for many years served as the center's founding director. The Cosmopolitan International Diabetes and Endocrinology Center established by Dr. Burns was the first public-private partnership at MU. Thousands of patients have received state-of-the-art care in Mid-Missouri as a result of Thomas W. Burns' tremendous contributions to medicine.

Dr. Burns has received numerous awards from community, State and national organizations. The American College of Physicians, the largest internal medicine organization in the country, bestowed on him the title of ``Master,'' which is the ACP's highest academic honor, and presented him with the Laureate Award. Dr. Burns also received the University of Missouri Faculty-Alumni Award in 1986 and the University of Missouri Distinguished Faculty Award in 1992.

Thomas and Joan Burns are leaders in recognizing that diabetes and cardiovascular disease are linked and that together the diseases constitute one of the most pressing health problems for Missouri and the Nation. Their contribution and legacy will allow MU to make potentially lifesaving advances in diabetes and cardiovascular research.

Mr. President, it is very important that we move forward with this bill. We have given time for our colleagues to debate and raise other questions. We would ask that we be able to proceed in a reasonable timeframe to take up amendments which have been introduced by the chairman and the vice chairman together and reflect bipartisan agreement. As vice chairman, I am firmly committed to passage of intelligence reauthorization. I would say further it remains my intention to reduce the partisanship and politicization of intelligence matters.

Events on the Senate floor yesterday, including direct personal attacks on me, indicate this remains a tall order. This bill makes getting a bill harder, and it is already hard enough. Given the kitchen sink provided in the administration's Statement of Administration Policy indicating a possible veto, the chairman and I are trying in good faith, as the chairman indicated, to work through 9, 10, or a dozen amendments to correct the major objections that the administration has.

The administration must know that as we try to weigh their key priorities, they must respect our priorities and our fundamental oversight responsibility which I and the Members of this body should take seriously, as any Senator will.

As for yesterday's events, Senator McConnell manages the floor for the minority. He did not want to end the debate prematurely and the opportunity to offer amendments by the minority, especially with 18 Members absent from the Senate due to bad weather. I supported him because it is the responsibility of our two leaders to manage the floor debate and to protect the rights of minorities and absent Senators. While the attacks on me were inappropriate and offensive, I will continue to work for passage of this intelligence reform measure, which is one of the most important bills we can pass in this session. The measure is too important to be derailed by personal and political attacks.

My friends on the other side of the aisle want more oversight of intelligence. I agree. We got into problems prior to 9/11 because we didn't have good oversight. We have found that there are holes that need to be plugged in oversight. We need to move forward. But forcing an end to the debate with 18 Members absent was not the way to do so. I am hoping that we can show progress by adopting amendments and moving this bill forward to exercise our oversight to provide the intelligence community the direction they need. Our desire is to move forward in the regular order, work our way through amendments, work out a time agreement, dispose of amendments, and hopefully conclude with a bill that most, if not the overwhelming majority, of Members can support so we can get to conference and continue the process.

I will continue to work with the chairman under the difficult circumstances that he and I both face. I am not for delay or any effort, real or imagined, to kill this bill, but I have honest concerns, as others, that there should be an opportunity to address through the regular order in a reasonable timeframe. If there are unreasonable delays, then we will pursue other options which are necessary sometimes to move a bill.

Because of the difficult division present in recent years over these issues, we have been unable to get an authorization bill passed. I find that unacceptable, and I am committed to finding a bill, but it can't be just any bill. It must be the product of give and take and mutual respect and compromise between both parties and both bodies and one the administration can sign.

Yes.

Mr. President, I didn't mean to cut the Senator off. For the movement of this bill, we had hoped to

be able to clear some amendments so we could show progress, but the Senator from Oklahoma is seeking recognition. I am sure he has some important things to say. I hope we will finish in time to allow us to pass the cleared amendments prior to 12:30. I apologize to the Senator from Oklahoma and thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the Chairman. We are moving forward now on the bill. As indicated, we have some drafting problems we are working out, but we also have high hopes of being able to adopt a number of the amendments that have been filed on both sides. Some of them may require modification.

Mr. President, as we get ready to go to our policy lunches, I once again ask that Members with amendments come forward and let us know what the amendments are. We ask that they be germane, because nongermane amendments, even if they are passed, will not survive conference. We want to keep the proceedings moving forward, so we ask that amendments be germane. We ask Members to work with us so we can accept them or offer a compromise to make them acceptable. We want to do that. Otherwise, when votes are needed, and I am sure they will be, we ask that a reasonable time period be agreed on by both sides, the proponent of the amendment and the opponent, so we may get some orderly procedure so our colleagues will know how we are moving forward and we can show progress.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I regret we have come to an impasse. The chairman and I and the members of the committee have worked very hard to get a bill that is getting much better. I am very sorry that we were not allowed to

vote on amendments this afternoon and to continue with our efforts to move this bill forward. The leaders are responsible on both sides for running this body, and we are in a position now where it appears to the minority that amendments will not--could be precluded under that circumstance. I am afraid there will not be the support for cloture. I regret that we have worked so long and hard and apparently will not be able to continue with this bill. I hope to do so at a later time.

I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, in not only bringing before this body the Intelligence authorization bill, S. 372, but also offering the managers' amendment. This is an important first step for the Senate to return to and enhance its responsibilities of coordinating oversight and conducting aggressive oversight of intelligence activities and programs.

The committee has not been able to pass an authorization bill in the last 2 years, which means the work that has gone on in the committee cannot be reflected in guidance to the committee or in carrying out our oversight responsibilities.

Some Members may recall, others have been informed, that 30 years ago the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was formed to address a serious problem. There had been a complete lack of congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence operations. Then when we reviewed the attacks of September 11, the findings of our committee and the findings of the 9/11 Commission confirmed that congressional oversight of intelligence was not what it should be.

We firmly believe that enacting S. 372 will move us a long way in restoring the Senate's legitimate role in oversight of U.S. intelligence. I believe we must be in a position where we can assure our colleagues and the people of the United States that the intelligence activities necessarily conducted in secret do comply with the Constitution, the treaties and the laws of the United States and other mandates and limitations placed on the exercise of that secret power.

Make no mistake about it, intelligence in this global war on terror, which has been declared on us by al-Qaida and other Islamic groups, is one that can only be countered with effective intelligence. Intelligence is the most important weapon we have in keeping our homeland safe and protecting U.S. interests and citizens abroad. We need to make sure it is done properly. We need to make sure it is done effectively.

Having studied the intelligence community and having gone through exhaustive reviews over the last 4 years of shortcomings pointed out in the intelligence community operations, we believe we can work with the intelligence community and provide necessary legislative support to ensure that the intelligence activities not only are staying within the road lines--staying on the road in the path--but also being carried out effectively. That is why we feel it is tremendously important we pass this legislation.

The chairman has pointed out there are concerns that have been voiced by the administration about this bill. To be candid, there are some provisions in the bill I do not favor or at least question. I hope in the amendment process and in the House-Senate conference we can develop a good bill that will be signed into law. But it is important to remember--and my colleagues who have expressed concerns particularly about the administration's objections should know--that what has been outlined by the chairman in the managers' amendment begins to deal with the major questions they have. The chairman and I have agreed it makes sense, for example, to declassify the top line number of the intelligence budget.

I have talked with leaders in the intelligence community and I said: Does that cause you any problems? They said: No. It is only when you get below that. Were you to go down the slippery slope of disclosing amounts going into particular units or particular programs of the intelligence community, you give away vital secrets.

This body has twice gone on record and was stated by the chairman and the 9/11 Commission has recommended disclosing the overall number so that the people of America will know whether we are continuing to support the intelligence community adequately, whether we are supporting it with the kinds of resources needed.

In our managers' amendment, we took out a study that would purport to look at the possibility of declassifying further details, other than the top line. We both agreed that should be out. The administration also was concerned about identifying certain sites, and we agreed, and in our managers' amendment we will take out any reference or any requirement of identifying those certain sites. The administration also was concerned about the number of people, the manner of informing members of the committee about certain activities that were highly classified. We are working to remedy that. The administration also had concerns about getting reports filed, the potential for a large number of requests being dumped on the intelligence community, and we have dealt with that.

So there are other items the administration has concerns about, and we may be able to address some of those here. We may be able to address some of those when we get to conference, if they still are not properly solved. But I would say one thing. The administration, like every administration, sometimes feels that congressional oversight goes further than they would like. Well, our job is to conduct oversight, and we do so with an aim of improving intelligence, the products that come out, and also ensuring that procedures are properly contained within the rules of the road, and we will continue to seek those legislative oversight tools.

We are going to accommodate the reasonable concerns of the Executive in every instance that we can because we want to make sure we don't, either by overt or inadvertent action, compromise intelligence sources, intelligence methods, or other essential intelligence programs that are necessary for the safety of our homeland and the safety of our troops in the field.

In addition to the measures contained in the managers' amendment, I have filed nine amendments, some of which overlap with the managers' amendment that we can discuss on the Senate floor. Some of these may be necessary to ameliorate and alleviate the administration's concerns. We were disadvantaged in filing this managers' amendment because the time that we had to do it was the time when most Members were out of Washington, DC, in their home State, which has led to some confusion.

I hope everybody who had a first-degree amendment that they wanted filed was able to file it by 2:30. We hope we will be able to deal with those amendments, and also we look forward to a good, robust debate on the floor of the Senate.

I hope we will have ready a description, at least for our side, of the provisions in the managers' amendment. Most of the concerns I have heard about this bill are concerns that should be alleviated by the managers' amendment, so I would ask all of my colleagues to read carefully the provisions in the managers' amendment to ensure that we have resolved those concerns.

In addition, Senator Rockefeller and I are always willing to discuss with colleagues, in this unclassified setting, the unclassified portions and our reasoning for it. Our invitation to Members still stands; that if Members want to be briefed on classified portions of the intelligence bill or on matters that cannot be discussed on the Senate floor, we stand ready with our staffs to have briefings set up in the intelligence facilities to fill them in on questions that they may legitimately have.

We will look forward to conducting the debate in the time ahead.

I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind comments. As I said earlier today, we are most grateful to the leadership for having brought up S. 372. This is a very important and necessary first step for the Senate to return to its responsibility of conducting oversight of U.S. intelligence activities and programs. Enacting S. 372 into law will help restore the Senate's legitimate role in oversight of U.S. intelligence.

As I said, the administration has voiced some concerns about provisions in the bill, and the chairman and I have made a good-faith attempt to address those concerns. We have a managers' amendment, plus several other amendments on which the chairman and I agree that we think are legitimate and measured modifications that don't change the basic purpose of our provisions but meet some of their objections.

As I said before, there are provisions in the bill that we do believe need such changes. Should any Member, however, feel we have not gone far enough, we invite them to come to the floor and join in the debate.

Is S. 372 perfect? I have never seen a piece of legislation that was and don't expect to see one. That being said, we should all remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good. There is no such thing as perfect legislation. We can today, however, begin the process of improving our oversight with a good piece of legislation.

Again, will the administration agree with everything in the bill? No. On the other hand, I do not remember many times in my political career when any executive branch has invited the legislative branch, Congress--or a State legislature with which I am also familiar--to conduct rigorous oversight of its actions and policies.

Unfortunately for executive branch officials, that is our constitutional role as laid down by the Founding Fathers. It does not mean we will refuse to accommodate the executive branch's legitimate concerns. After all, the President does have the power to veto any legislation that he feels unduly intrudes upon his authority.

In an effort to ensure the administration's concerns are addressed, I have filed an additional nine amendments to S. 372, some of which overlap with the managers' amendment the chairman and I have presented. I believe the chairman and I are in agreement on almost all of these amendments, if not all of them. Through that process, I think we can alleviate the concerns the administration has with the bill.

I am concerned, however, that the process by which we had to draft the managers' amendment, combined with the fact that the preparation had to be undertaken largely when Members were in their home State, has led to some confusion among our colleagues. That is why we are handing out a one-page summary that I hope all Members will review so they understand how this measure has been changed. We will be happy to talk with them privately or discuss it with them on the floor, and our staffs are available to work with their staffs if they have any other concerns.

I also want to make it clear to all of my colleagues that I support full and open debate on S. 372 and the timely consideration of all germane amendments. We ask that the amendments be germane. We would have great difficulty in conferencing this bill on nongermane amendments and the possibility that they would be accepted in the final report I would say is doubtful. If confusion over the amendment filing process has prevented any Senator from getting a germane amendment considered, I will certainly work with that Member to see if we could get the amendment brought to the floor for consideration.

Again, I thank my chairman who has worked in a very cooperative manner. We are seeking to achieve a good bipartisan consensus on how we in this body exercise our very important constitutional role of providing oversight for a critically important factor in our responsibility, and that is oversight and legislation with respect to the national intelligence program and the intelligence community which administers it.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there have been some insinuations which have been thrown around on the other side. Let me be clear. This was not a cloture vote on the managers' amendment. This was a cloture vote on the bill. Many Republican Senators had asked to have an opportunity to offer amendments. Some 35 amendments have been submitted. The time for submitting the amendments shut off at 2:30 today, and we have at least 10 or so Senators who could not get back here.

Now, this bill is a good bill. But we have no reason, before we even start work on the bill, to invoke cloture to shut off amendments. Nobody from the White House told us to do that. We have Republican Senators who wanted to have an opportunity to offer amendments and vote. This is a critically important bill for the intelligence community, and I believe we need to work on it at least a couple of days. Is that too much to ask, that we work on it a couple of days?

I know the leader has entered a motion to reconsider. And if there is any sense--if there is any sense--that there is dilatory action, if there is any sense that we are not moving quickly on this bill in very short order, I would join with him and urge my Republican colleagues to do so to move this bill forward. This bill is one that has to pass if we are to get our legitimate congressional oversight.

I am not going to get into the arguments between the leaders on how many times we have invoked cloture. But on this one--this one--I gladly urged everybody to vote for cloture to proceed to the bill. There may be some in the executive branch who did not want us to. There may be a lot of provisions in the bill on oversight that the executive branch does not want. I believe we have a responsibility--a responsibility--to consider this carefully.

Reference has been made to a number of things that were inaccurate. There was a reference made to having to shut down the Senate to get a process moving in one of the second-phase investigations. The staff work had essentially been completed. The staff, under bipartisan leadership, had worked on getting that done. Shutting down the Senate was a great show, but it did nothing to move forward that particular phase of the investigation.

Now, I want to see this committee--and I hope this body--operate on a bipartisan basis. But I was very disappointed when I saw that cloture had been filed before we even started the process of amendments. Cloture is necessary when you see there is a filibuster or you see there are nongermane amendments. some of the amendments are nongermane and I will ask that they be withdrawn or I will join in a tabling motion, but I think this subject, which has not been debated on the floor sufficiently in recent years, should be open to a thorough debate. We don't want to take up a lot of time. We need to get this bill to the House and work with them to get a good Intelligence authorization bill through.

The insinuation that we got an order from the White House is absolutely without basis. They are working with us in a cooperative way, and I hope to move forward on this bill, which is now open for amendment and debate. I look forward to the opportunity to proceed with that debate and votes on the bill.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I apologize.

Reserving the right to object, we have 35 amendments. There are 10 amendments which I believe have the support of the chairman and the vice chairman. I will be happy to work tomorrow with the leaders, with the chairman, to develop a list of amendments and get a time agreement. But

the whole purpose was to move this bill forward and find out what amendments are coming from both sides. I don't know about amendments from people who are not here.

I object to that proceeding.

Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I want to see this bill move forward. It is open for amendment and debate. I will work with the chairman, with the leaders on both sides to come to a short time agreement with amendments to be considered. If that cannot be accepted, if we have any indication that this bill is going to be drawn out, then I will work with the leadership to get us to a position to vote on the bill. I remain committed to seeing this bill go forward, but I believe we have the need for at least a day's debate. The objection to proceeding on the bill was withdrawn. There could have been debate on Friday, but we weren't in. Now we are back in session, and I hope both sides can come forward and offer their amendments and offer their debates, and have votes and move this bill to final passage and send it to conference.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, children endure a lot. They cannot always tell us what's wrong. Often they do not know themselves. So it takes a special person to work with young people and help identify their problems. Every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential, but it takes more than a book-bag full of pencils, paper, books and rulers to equip children with the tools necessary to succeed in school.

The most important tool kids will take to school is their eyes. Good vision is critical to learning. 80 percent of what kids learn in their early school years is visual. Unfortunately, we overlook that fact sometimes. According to the CDC only one in three children receive any form of preventive vision care before entering school. That means many kids are in school with an undetected vision problem. One in four children has a vision problem that can interfere with learning. Some children are even labeled ``disruptive'' or thought to have a learning disability when the real reason for their difficulty is an undetected vision problem.

Without any vision care, some of our children will continue to fall through the cracks. I sympathize with these kids because I suffer from permanent vision loss in one eye as a result of undiagnosed Amblyopia in childhood. Amblyopia is the number one cause of vision loss in young Americans. If discovered and treated early, vision loss from Amblyopia can be largely prevented. Had I been identified and treated before I entered school, I could have avoided a lifetime of vision loss. Parents are not always aware that their child may suffer from a vision problem. By educating parents on the importance of vision care and recognizing signs of visual impairment we can help children avoid unnecessary vision loss.

To ensure that children get the vital vision care that they need to succeed, today Senator Dodd and I are introducing the Vision Care for Kids Act which will establish a grant program to compliment and encourage existing State efforts to improve children's vision care. More specifically, grant funds will be used to: (1) provide comprehensive eye exams to children that have been previously identified as needing such services; (2) provide treatment or services necessary to correct vision problems identified in that eye exam; and (3) develop and disseminate educational materials to recognize the signs of visual impairment in children

for parents, teachers, and health care practitioners.

We need to do this. We must improve vision care for children to better equip them to succeed in school and in life. The Vision Care for Kids Act, endorsed by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Optometric Association, and Vision Council of America, will make a difference in the lives of children across the country.

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

Mr. President, children endure a lot. They cannot always tell us what's wrong. Often they do not know themselves. So it takes a special person to work with young people and help identify their problems. Every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential, but it takes more than a book-bag full of pencils, paper, books and rulers to equip children with the tools necessary to succeed in school.

The most important tool kids will take to school is their eyes. Good vision is critical to learning. 80 percent of what kids learn in their early school years is visual. Unfortunately, we overlook that fact sometimes. According to the CDC only one in three children receive any form of preventive vision care before entering school. That means many kids are in school with an undetected vision problem. One in four children has a vision problem that can interfere with learning. Some children are even labeled ``disruptive'' or thought to have a learning disability when the real reason for their difficulty is an undetected vision problem.

Without any vision care, some of our children will continue to fall through the cracks. I sympathize with these kids because I suffer from permanent vision loss in one eye as a result of undiagnosed Amblyopia in childhood. Amblyopia is the number one cause of vision loss in young Americans. If discovered and treated early, vision loss from Amblyopia can be largely prevented. Had I been identified and treated before I entered school, I could have avoided a lifetime of vision loss. Parents are not always aware that their child may suffer from a vision problem. By educating parents on the importance of vision care and recognizing signs of visual impairment we can help children avoid unnecessary vision loss.

To ensure that children get the vital vision care that they need to succeed, today Senator Dodd and I are introducing the Vision Care for Kids Act which will establish a grant program to compliment and encourage existing State efforts to improve children's vision care. More specifically, grant funds will be used to: (1) provide comprehensive eye exams to children that have been previously identified as needing such services; (2) provide treatment or services necessary to correct vision problems identified in that eye exam; and (3) develop and disseminate educational materials to recognize the signs of visual impairment in children

for parents, teachers, and health care practitioners.

We need to do this. We must improve vision care for children to better equip them to succeed in school and in life. The Vision Care for Kids Act, endorsed by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Optometric Association, and Vision Council of America, will make a difference in the lives of children across the country.

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

Mr. President, I wholeheartedly join with my new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, in urging our colleagues to work constructively with us in reestablishing congressional oversight of our intelligence community.

More than 30 years ago, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was formed to address a serious problem, and that problem was previously a complete lack of congressional oversight of the U.S. intelligence operations. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the findings of the 9/11 Commission confirmed that congressional oversight of intelligence was still seriously lacking in many areas.

With the painful lessons of 9/11 in mind and the threats laid out by Chairman Rockefeller, it is more important than ever that we perform our oversight role. Unfortunately, the last Congress failed to see an intelligence authorization bill pass the Senate, although Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller tried hard to pass one. There were political reasons--neither side of the aisle was blameless in that regard--but it did not happen.

When Senator McConnell asked me to be vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee for this session of Congress, I wrote a letter with suggestions to the chairman on the priorities, and at the top of the list was passing the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence Authorization Act. Chairman Rockefeller and I strongly agreed that if we were to be able to conduct constructive oversight and make our suggestions and our requests and demands known, we would have to pass this bill. We have to pass authorization bills. We have been in agreement on that matter since the beginning.

We have a managers' amendment we will be describing in more detail which we will offer which addresses some of the serious concerns other Members and I have had for some time, and I would ask anybody who has concerns about the underlying bill to look at the managers' amendment, which I think addresses most, if not all, of the serious concerns that might be raised.

We have to reassert our oversight. Now, there may be some officials in the executive branch who prefer a lack of congressional oversight. I sure understand their positions. If I were running an agency, I wouldn't want to have Congress looking over my shoulder. But that is not how the system works. We have a responsibility to provide the funding and oversee how they are carrying out their duties, and I suggest this bill will give us the power to do so and ensure constructive accountability. One of the most significant means of providing such accountability is authorizing the appropriations for the intelligence community's national intelligence program, or NIP. For that reason, the authorization of the appropriations section in this bill may be its most important section.

Is this bill perfect? No. There is no such thing as perfect legislation--I have never seen one, and I don't expect to see one--but we all get an opportunity and will have an opportunity to vote to improve it.

The bill, as reported, is largely the same bill as last year and contains many provisions sought by intelligence community agencies to help them in their job. For example, the bill provides the Director of National Intelligence with additional authorities to improve information access across the intelligence community. So there can no longer be stovepipes of information not shared among the agencies collecting it. The DNI is given full access to human intelligence and the authority to improve access and coordination across the community.

Nearly half of the provisions contained in this bill were requested by the intelligence community for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. We are in the process of receiving the IC request for 2008, as it clears OMB. When we pass this bill, we will have addressed 23 of the 31 cleared provisions that are contained in the IC's fiscal 2008 request.

There is also included an example of where our committee wants to take some initiative. The bill creates within the office of the DNI a National Space Intelligence Center--or we may call it an office--to address intelligence collections related to our space assets or threats to the United States from space. The need for this office was emphasized recently by the successful antisatellite weapons test by the People's Republic of China. Creating this new office or center is an example of the forward-leaning oversight that corrects a present deficiency within the IC.

It is time the Senate reassert its constitutional role in oversight. Does the process have warts? As I said, of course it does, but it is a critical component of our national security.

I urge all Senators to work with us constructively to pass the bill. We look forward to hearing from both sides on the amendments they have, and maybe we will be able to clear many of them and get this bill passed. We ask that Members bring those amendments to us as soon as possible.

Again, I strongly urge and request my colleagues who recognize that intelligence is so important in this global war on terror declared on us by al-Qaida and radical Islamists--not a war we started but a war they started, that can only be countered by good intelligence--help us get to the process of improving our intelligence community and our intelligence performance.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his leadership, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a very important debate, but I have another very important subject that I need to bring to the attention of this body. First and foremost, as I address this body, Congress has yet to take the necessary steps to approve emergency funding for our troops serving in a war zone. While I applaud the steps taken by the leadership of the Senate to appoint conferees moments after passing the supplemental appropriations bill, Speaker Pelosi and the House leadership have been too busy conducting foreign policy to appoint conferees.

I am here. We are ready--I, along with a number of my colleagues--to get to work and get the funds where they are needed. As I said time and time again on the Senate floor, our generals and military commanders are in the best position and are best suited to know the needs of our forces. When they tell us they need the funds urgently, I do not believe they are leaving much room for interpretation.

General Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff--a no-nonsense operator-- said:

Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we

will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which

will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our

soldiers and their families.

Secretary Gates, whom war critics and opponents alike embraced this straight-talking, candid Secretary of Defense, said:

This kind of disruption to key programs will have a

genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the

quality of life for soldiers and families.

In addition, this, too, would degrade the already perilous State of the National Guard's home front mission to support civil authorities. We are told that 88 percent of the Guard units at home are not equipped to respond to natural disasters or a potential terrorist attack.

That is why I was proud to support, with my friend and National Guard Caucus cochairman, Senator Leahy, inclusion of a billion dollars in the supplemental for Guard equipment.

The most significant and important constitutional role this Congress is supposed to be undertaking is exercising its power over the purse. Yet, ironically and most detrimentally to our troops, that one paramount duty seems to be the last one on the to-do list of some in Congress. Instead, the retreat-and-defeat crowd has sought to micromanage the war from 8,000 miles away, setting timetables and prescribing troop movements. This same message will discourage our allies, who are beginning to help, obviously, our troops, and only encourage our enemies.

The recent action taken by the retreat-and-defeat crowd would suggest they are vested in defeat in order to achieve the goals of the far left wing of the Democratic Party where Michael Moore, George Soros, and others who support their party with tens of millions of dollars for 527s will do anything to undermine President Bush, even if it means losing the war that radical Islam and al-Qaida have declared on us.

As we have seen in recent weeks since the implementation of General Petraeus' plan, there is movement in the right direction. It cannot be changed overnight and nobody should expect an immediate turnaround, but it is the best hope we have. Senator McCain, who just returned from Iraq, reports that Sunni sheiks in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaida, more than 50 joint United States-Iraqi stations have been established in Baghdad, Muqtada al-Sadr has felt the heat, and his followers overall are not contesting them. Finally, Senator McCain observed that Iraqi Army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own, with their size and capability growing.

While Senator McCain and I would agree that there are no guarantees for victory and we have a long way to go, we certainly need to make every effort to achieve it. Yet some Members of this body and the other body say the real war on terror is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If that is so, why are our marines fighting in Al Anbar against al-Qaida?

Charles Krauthammer, on March 30 in the Washington Post, wrote on this very topic:

Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral

observer--a Martian--and point out to him that the U.S. is

involved in two hot wars against radical Islam insurgents.

One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater

with no resources and no industrial or technical

infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three

principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated

population, an advanced military and technological

infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later

years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it

falls into the wrong hands. Add to that the fact that its

strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence

over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia,

Kuwait, and the Gulf States. Then ask your Martian: Which is

the more important battle? He would not even understand why

you are asking the question.

The war in Iraq is a very important front on the larger global battlefield. If anyone doubts this, then all we need to do is to listen to what Osama bin Laden had to say back in December 2004 in a message to Muslims in Iraq.

Bin Ladin said: I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic Nation. Listen and understand. The issue is big, and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War which the crusader Zionist coalition began against the Islamic Nation. It is raging in the land of the Two Rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.

That is what Osama bin Laden said. He has gone on to say: The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries--the Islamic Nation, on the one

hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.

Now, obviously we did not declare war on radical Islam; it declared war on us.

In addition, some in the House have sought to strike the term ``global war on terror,'' pandering again to the likes of the George Soros wing of the party, undercutting U.S. efforts.

The global war on terror is a real mission that 9/11 showed us has no geographical boundaries and one that so many of our brave men and women have died for since the attacks of 9/11.

The terrorists have been targeting the United States throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The United States never responded to those attacks, and the message sent was one of weakness, not strength. We would be repeating the same mistake today by communicating a weakness of our will by our political leaders. We withdrew from Vietnam, we withdrew from Beirut, we withdrew from Mogadishu. These repeated withdrawals signal to our enemies all over the world that if they inflict enough damage on our most heroic citizens, the marines will never surrender, but Washington will.

A precipitous withdrawal, such as that being prescribed by the wannabe generals here in the Congress, would be disastrous. The Iraq Study Group's recommendations reached the same conclusion. James Baker, the group's cochairman, just wrote:

The report does not set timetables or deadlines for the

removal of troops as contemplated by the supplemental

spending bills the House and Senate passed. In fact, the

report specifically opposes that approach. As many military

and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would

allow the enemy to wait us out and would strengthen the

positions of extremists over moderates. A premature American

departure from Iraq, we unanimously concluded, would almost

certainly produce even greater sectarian violence and further

deterioration of conditions in Iraq and possibly other

countries.

The intelligence community, in open hearing, said precipitous withdrawal on a political timetable would lead to heightened killings of Shias and Sunnis, offer a safe haven for al-Qaida to reestablish itself, and likely a region-wide war between Sunni and Shia countries.

To ignore these questions and considerations simply because they are unpalatable is shortsighted at best and dangerous at the worst. Those who want to end the war precipitously because they want to embarrass the President do not want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq will do anything but end--in fact, would only grow even more dangerous. If we leave, radical Islamists will follow us home.

What I say to those who want to get out either immediately or on a political timetable, not based on the conditions on the ground, is if you want to run the war on terror from this body, you will own it. Even if some would-be generals in this body think they are smarter than General Petraeus and can devise a better plan in legislation--and I doubt that they can--how can they adjust their legislation conditions on the battlefield? To micromanage a war is to ensure defeat.

When a newly revitalized al-Qaida carries out renewed 9/11-scale attacks, you will own those attacks as well. There are hundreds of thousands of soldiers, marines, guardsmen, and reservists and their families who will remember, and I will help remind everyone.

As you may know, I proudly hail from the Show Me State. If all of the rhetoric in Washington about supporting the troops is true, and I believe people mean it, then I suggest that the Congress show our troops we do support them by getting them the funds and giving them a chance to succeed and not taking away management from the hands of our capable generals in the field and bringing to it this body where, in our great military wisdom, we know better than the troops, the officers, and the commanders on the ground what the conditions are in Iraq and the other battlefields.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. I know it is not our side's time. If there is no objection, I would appreciate using the time.

Mr. President, this is going to be a very busy day. I have comments that will relate to what will happen when we bring the bill up on the floor, but I thought I would take this time to talk about two things that are extremely important. First, with respect to the bill, I am the lead Republican cosponsor, with the Senators from North Dakota and South Dakota, on ag disaster. We have been 3 years without an agricultural disaster bill. We have had 3 years of agricultural disasters. Those of us from the Midwest know that we have been afflicted with droughts, tornadoes, tremendous losses by farmers, livestock producers, and others in agricultural production. I visited southwest Missouri this January and saw what some people described as countywide tornadoes. The ice storms were so severe they broke down trees, collapsed sheds, knocked out power, broke down fences, and put many livestock and poultry producers on the verge of financial disaster.

Similarly over the years, when drought has struck, the ag producers, livestock and poultry and crops, were hit severely. This ag disaster package is absolutely essential. I appreciate the lead of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in including our request for ag disaster.

In addition, I am a very strong supporter of the amendment of the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee to strike the limitations on the ability of General Petraeus to conduct the war in Iraq. Let us remember that General Petraeus came before the committees to outline his new ideas, his new plan for moving forward in Iraq. People had been saying: We need a new plan. Yes, clearly, we need a new plan. The Bremer plan, debaathification, firing the Army, sending them home without pay and with their weapons, turns out to have been the absolute wrong thing to do. But General Petraeus, who was unanimously confirmed by this body, has gone back to Iraq with his new way of going forward.

They have made some significant changes in the rules of engagement. Now no longer are Shia death squads or militia off-limits. Moqtada al- Sadr has seen the light or felt the heat, and he has gone to Tehran. We are talking action against Jaysh al-Mahdi and others who are engaged in sectarian battles. We have a new plan of going in, holding, and clearing, the conventional and now-proven theory of dealing with insurgencies. You cannot just go in and wipe out people who are causing chaos and killing their political enemies. You have to stay there and maintain peace, security. That is what we are supporting the Iraqi forces doing. The Iraqi forces are there. They are the ones who are going to have to take over. The training of the Iraqi forces is the critical element for us to assure stability in the region.

Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on mine embraced the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. For example, the distinguished majority whip on December 8 on CNN said:

We ought to follow the Iraqi Study Group.

This new plan the President and General Petraeus have put forward is, by and large, the Iraq Study Group's plan. After receiving the report, when you look at the recommendations, they track with what we are doing now, from sending reinforcements to Baghdad to increasing the number of embedded American advisers, to holding the Iraqi Government responsible for specific security and political milestones. The differences between what we are doing now in Iraq and the Iraq Study Group recommendations are insignificant. Sending reinforcements to Baghdad, the principal tenet of the new plan General Petraeus has put forth, is referenced in general by the Iraq Study Group, which said it could support a short- term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, recognizing the level of violence in and around Baghdad has crippled the ability of both the al-Maliki Government and the U.S. military to restore basic services and establish a modicum of law and order. I quote:

The ISG recognized, as does the U.S. military, that Baghdad

is central to success or failure in Iraq. It is not

surprising that more troops were added--the total number of

which is still below 2005 levels.

There is one other very important point that is of concern to everybody in this body and all Americans. The Iraq Study Group said:

The United States should not make an open-ended commitment

to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.

President Bush said of his plan and its implementation:

I've 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.

It is clear we have a new way forward. The language in the underlying legislation before us says we ought to set a timetable, a political timetable. We ought to determine in this body exactly the dates when we start removing troops from Baghdad, from Iraq, changing our policy.

I have a novel idea: Wars cannot be run from these hallowed and comfortable and sanctified chambers 10,000 miles away from the war zone. How about allowing the officers, the men, and the commanders in the field--who are engaged daily, risking their lives to bring peace and security to Iraq--to determine when and how we can best turn over to the Iraqi security forces the critical job--the critical job--of assuring security and a relatively peaceful country? Nobody is saying it is going to be a Jeffersonian democracy. What we are seeking is peace and security.

We had an open hearing with the leaders of the intelligence community in January before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The top leaders of that intelligence community said, unanimously, it would be very unwise to establish a short-term political timetable for withdrawal prior to the

time the Iraqi security forces take over.

If this body, in its ``wisdom''--an oxymoron in this case--says pull out on such-and-such date, and the Iraqi security forces are not ready to take over, what would happen? Three things--all of them bad.

No. 1, the killing, sectarian violence between Shia and Sunnis would escalate. You would see many more thousands killed, as we would no longer be there to serve as a buffer and as adviser to prevent that from happening.

No. 2, the goal of al-Qaida, as expressed by Osama bin Laden and his No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to achieve the headquarters of the caliphate in the ``land of the two rivers,'' i.e., Baghdad, would be achieved. They would have a safe haven. They would have a safe haven from which they could train, recruit, perhaps even get back to turning on the dual-use facilities Saddam Hussein set up for turning out chemical or biological weapons.

Now, the third thing that would happen, which is a true disaster, would be the neighboring countries would have to come in to back up their co-religionists. If the Sunnis are being oppressed by the Shia, then the Sunni states will be ready, and they will come in. If they come in, Iran and its Shia partners are all ready to come in.

What happens then? We have a conflagration in the Middle East bringing in many countries in a region-wide war that will draw, unfortunately, perhaps hundreds of thousands of American troops to prevent the disaster from spreading, to support our friends in Israel.

General Petraeus has promised, in his confirmation hearings, that he will tell us if the new plan, the new rules of engagement--putting the Iraqi security forces out front, with American advisers continuing to supply American troops to go after the high-value targets, the radical Salafist jihadists of al-Qaida and other entities--we will continue to hunt them down so they do not overwhelm the Iraqi security forces.

General Petraeus will tell us. He should know by this summer if it fails. If it fails, he said he will tell us, and I would trust he would begin making such changes as are necessary, without tipping off the enemy what they are planning to do. The important thing is not telling the enemy what our timetable is.

I think it is perhaps illustrative to share with you some comments from an e-mail I received from a marine who has been in Iraq and who is going back. He was commenting on a timetable. He said: I haven't polled all of them. I don't speak for all of them, but I can tell you, a lion's share think a timetable is a disastrous idea. I don't know what possible benefit you can assess that would come from a timetable. Where is the help toward mission accomplishment?

He said: Iraqis understand that progress is being made. I think the Iraqi forces are getting ready to take over and with our help should be able to do it sometime in 2007. But if we tell everyone exactly when that is going to be, it gets a lot easier for the merry mujahedin to claim victory, lay low, and then wreak havoc when the coalition packs up shop.

This particular marine said: I'm not wild about going back to Iraq, but I would sure as heck rather do that than essentially invalidate everything we've done to date by leaving too early and inviting chaos.

That is the choice. Does a political timetable give Members cover back here? Maybe. But I have even heard that ridiculed. I have heard that ridiculed. I ask this body to strike the language, let General Petraeus run the war, let him pursue every avenue to assure Iraq is stable and secure. He and the President have said, if it does not work, we will change policy. But let's give it a chance to work.

Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues and yield the floor.

Sure.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the Dakotas. Before he arrived on the floor, I made the case for it. The Senator asked about the situation in Missouri. I told them about the devastating ice storms. We have had a historic drought. What we need is a comprehensive national policy to deal with the problems and not just for the Dakotas or Missouri but for Colorado, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas, California--throughout this country--where people have been devastated by extreme weather conditions.

We have livestock producers who were hit the hardest. There is no safety net in place for livestock producers. They are not protected by crop insurance, the farm bill, or disaster protection under the USDA since the standard is crop loss and there were no crops to be lost in the middle of the winter in an ice storm. But the devastation is there.

This body and this Government came to the rescue of people who were absolutely wiped out by Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. Well, the impact in the farm area is very severe. No, it is not the same as a hurricane, but the weather disasters have caused tremendous hardships and threaten to put many farmers under and destroy rural communities.

That is why I am very pleased to join with my colleague in urging this body to keep the agricultural disaster program, the relief we have not had for 3 years, in this bill.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Sen. Harkin to establish the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to support fundamental agricultural research of the highest quality. I present this to begin a critical discussion about how we are going to ensure the United States capitalizes on new technology to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of our agricultural production.

We remain the world leader in food and fiber production. We do it safely and through technology and the hard work of the American farmer. In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S. farm has grown from 19 to 129. Our farmers and farm leaders are on the cutting edge of developing new technology. And we have seen the innovations continue to come down the pike. This has made it possible for one farmer to feed 129 people.

In addition, we export $60 billion worth of agricultural products, and we do so at less cost and at less harm to the environment than any of our competitors around the world, again, because of new practices, diligence on the part of farmers, and new technology.

In a world that has a decreasing amount of soil available for cultivation, we have a growing population and we still have 800 million children who are hungry or malnourished throughout the world. Unless we maximize technology and new practices, production will continue to overtax the world's natural resources.

Many people legitimately have raised concerns regarding new diseases and pests and related food safety issues. And they are growing. The ability of U.S. agriculture producers to maintain our world leadership in this environment is only as solid as our willingness to commit to forward-looking investments.

Now, we also know from past experience that with new technology the doors are being opened to novel new uses of renewable agricultural products in the fields of energy, medicine, and industrial products. In the future, we can make our farm fields and farm animals factories for everyday products, fuels, and medicines in a way that is efficient and better preserves our natural resources. Advances in the life sciences have come about, such as genetics, proteomics, and cell and molecular biology. They are providing the base for new and continuing agricultural innovations.

It was only about a dozen years ago that farmers in Missouri came to me to tell me about the potential that genetic engineering and plant biotechnology had for improving the production of food, and doing so with less impact on the environment, providing more nutritious food. Since that time, I have had a wonderful, continuing education, not in how it works but what it can do.

We know now, for example, that in hungry areas of the world as many as half a million children go blind from Vitamin A deficiency, and maybe a

million die from this deficiency. Through plant biotechnology, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and others have developed Golden Rice, taking a gene from the sunflower, a beta- carotene gene, and they enrich the rice. The Golden Rice now has that Vitamin A, and that is going to make a significant difference in dealing with malnutrition.

We also know that in many areas of the world, where agricultural production has overtaxed the land, where drought has cut the production, where virus has plagued production, the way we can make farmers self-sufficient and restore the farm economy in many of these countries, is through plant biotechnology. But this is just the beginning. This legislation I am introducing today seeks to lay the foundation for tremendous advances in the future.

This legislation stems from findings and recommendations produced by a distinguished group of scientists working on the Agricultural Research, Economics and Education Task Force, which I was honored to be able to include in the 2002 farm bill. The distinguished task force was led by Dr. William H. Danforth, of St. Louis, the brother of our former distinguished colleague, Senator Jack Danforth. Dr. Bill Danforth has a tremendous reputation in science and in education, with a commitment to human welfare and is known worldwide. He was joined by Dr. Nancy Betts, the University of Nebraska; Mr. Michael Bryan, president of BBI International; Dr. Richard Coombe, the Watershed Agricultural Council; Dr. Victor Lechtenbert, Purdue University; Dr. Luis Sequeira, the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Robert Wideman, the University of Arkansas; and Dr. H. Alan Wood, Mississippi State University.

I extend my congratulations and my sincere gratitude to Dr. Danforth and his team for providing the basis and the roadmap to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problems and capitalize on the opportunities in agricultural research. The full report of the task force can be found at www.ars.usda.gov/research.htm.

In summary, that study concludes that it is absolutely necessary we reinvigorate and forward focus our technology to meet the responsibilities of our time. New investment is critical for the world's consumers, the protection of our natural resources, the standard of living for Americans who labor in rural America, and for the well-being of the hungry people and the needy people throughout the world.

This legislation is supported by the some 22 Member and Associate Member Societies of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, as well as the Institute of Food Technologists, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, the Council for Agricultural Research, the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, the American Soybean Association, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges and the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.

I look forward to pursuing this vision in the 110th Congress. I invite my colleagues who are interested in science and research to review this report, to look at this measure, to join with me and Senator Harkin to talk about moving forward on what I think will be a tremendous opportunity to improve agriculture and its benefits to all our populations.

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