Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Sure.

Mr. BOND. 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. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. 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.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to honor and recognize the immeasureable contributions MG Roger E. Combs has made to the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Army, the National Guard Bureau, his family, and a grateful nation. When people talk about the ``Spirit of America'' and the people who helped make this country great, all one really has to do is mention the name of GEN Roger Combs. General Combs has dedicated his life to serving his country both in the military and as a civilian. His experiences, hard work, and honest counsel have gained him the respect of his peers and his community. Born and raised on a small dairy farm in Stanberry, MO, to Ruby Fern and H.H. Combs, General Combs studied genetics and productive physiology at the University of Missouri-Columbia. While he planned to go into the family business and become a veterinarian, fate and the Vietnam War intervened and he joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1968. Graduating with honors from the USMC Basic Officer's Infantry School and selected for the U.S. Army Rotary wing's flight school, General Combs served a combat tour as a CH-46 helicopter pilot from 1969 to 1970 with HMM-364, ``The Purple Foxes'' at Marble Mountain Air Facility, Republic of Vietnam. Flying over 500 combat missions, he earned a Distinguished Flying Cross, two single mission air medals, and 37 ``strick/flight awards.'' After returning from active duty in Vietnam, General Combs served in many positions, including as an operations officer and aircraft maintenance officer with HMM-263 at Marine Corps Air Station, Quantico, VA. General Combs' work in Missouri merits special recognition and is the reason I felt compelled to make a statement on his behalf in the Congressional Record. After leaving active duty in 1973, General Combs joined the Missouri Army National Guard and flew UH-1 ``Huey's'' with the 635th Aviation Company, from Whiteman, AFB, MO. He transferred to the Missouri Air National Guard in 1978 and later became the director of intelligence for the 139th Tactical Airlift Group in St. Joseph, MO. Yet it was at the Missouri Air National Guard Headquarters in St. Joseph, MO that General Combs become nationally recognized for his expertise in developing long-range strategic planning. As first a planner, then general officer and member of the Air Reserve Forces Policy Committee, General Combs was instrumental in analyzing the future needs of the National Guard and advising senior policy makers on the best course of action. General Combs' footprint extended outside of the military. Upon his return to Missouri after serving in Vietnam, Combs returned to law school at the University of Missouri and upon graduation became a partner in a law firm, a prosecuting attorney, and was elected a judge in 1990. This past December he retired from the bench and returned to being a part time prosecutor and general practitioner. Perhaps the best measure of General Combs' legacy comes from those who have worked along side him. ``Judge Combs,'' as he is affectionately known by his peers and military associates, is an excellent lawyer and military strategist with impeccable character and integrity. The ``Judge'' was effective in both the military and judicial branches in encouraging parties to seek arbitration and dispute resolution instead of litigation. One good friend and colleague recalled that it was not only General ``Judge'' Combs, dry humor which endeared him to his peers but his sincere interest in caring and protecting those who served under him. ``He goes to extraordinary links to ensure they are cared for, ``said one colleague. I cannot conclude these remarks without commending the dedicated and loving support of General Combs' wife, Gloria, and his three children David, Matthew, and Susan. Married almost 35 years ago at Conaway Hall at Andrews Air Force Base, Gloria has remained General Combs' most loyal supporter and confidant. General ``Judge'' Combs has led an extraordinary life in which he has answered his Nation's call to duty and served courageously in war and admirably from the bench. It is my hope and prayer that ``Judge'' Combs will continue to thrive alongside Gloria in whatever endeavor he opts to pursue. If his former, and current, success is any indicator, I am certain that the years ahead will be both fruitful and rewarding. God bless you, ``Judge'' and best wishes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this very important subject. Some have said we don't want to debate the war in Iraq, but we have been doing that and I am happy to debate it. We are at war. One of the jobs of this body is to support our troops when we are at war. As such, we should be taking up the supplemental war funding bill that will directly support and aid our service men and women and support the efforts underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. I regret the Democratic leadership has chosen to delay acting on funds our troops in the field need and must have by the 1st of May. Here we go, talking about resolutions. We are taking up nonbinding resolutions. The key one is nonsensical; it would serve only to undermine the morale of our service men and women and boost the morale of our enemies. S.J. Res. 9 has a clear message, if not to Americans reading the news, certainly to our enemy: America has been defeated. America does not have the will to win. Or we cannot defeat American troops on the streets of Iraq, but we can defeat America in the halls of Congress. That is what they will be saying. Out of the 17 different resolutions the majority has worked with and introduced, they have decided to debate S.J. Res. 9--one in a litany of defeatist, micromanaging resolutions that have been offered by the other side. Like so many of the others, it calls for a retreat and it ensures defeat. Such a retreat, in its wake, would create a bastion of instability, violence, regional conflict, and a launching point for future attacks on our allies and this Nation such as that witnessed after 9/11. The intelligence community, in public testimony before our committee in January, publicly stated that the very real three-pronged threat of turning Iraq over to the chaos is a serious challenge we all should consider. Fortunately, those of us who believe the generals ought to run the war have the Constitution on our side, which specifies that the President--not those of us in the 535 Members of Congress--is Commander in Chief. The proponents of S.J. Res. 9 to set deadlines must now believe they are more equipped, better informed, and have better judgment than the leaders and military commanders they recently and unanimously confirmed. Is the American public to believe that the legislators in these beautiful halls, 8,000 miles away from the front, are better equipped to develop strategies than General Petraeus, whom this body confirmed unanimously to lead U.S. forces? I think the Founding Fathers were right at the time and they are right now. We do not fight wars in the Halls of Congress. We cannot win this war by resolutions we pass, but we can lose the war in the Halls of Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to cite public opinion polls about Iraq as well as a reason why we should pull out. What may be perceived to be popular in the short run, regrettably, will in the long run compound into an even bigger problem that will end up costing us and our allies far more blood and treasure. Further, when it comes to national security, we ought to be governing on principles, not on public opinion polls. The American people want victory, not defeat. They are demanding progress, which the new security plan was designed to produce. Incidentally, this new plan fits almost exactly with the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton committee, which so many people on both sides of the aisle said would be the ultimate solution. Well, General Petraeus and the administration are carrying out the details of the Baker-Hamilton plan, and now we are changing our mind. Why? Well, some, I fear, may be inspired by a loathing of President Bush. But even to those of you who do, I appeal to you to recognize the President is not the enemy. The enemy is ruthlessly chopping the heads off innocent civilians in front of cameras, blowing up schoolchildren, blowing up places of worship. One Army officer recently e-mailed me and said: I proudly served in Iraq. I know who the enemies of America are. I have met them in person. Our President is not the enemy. This would not be George Bush's defeat or victory. It will be an American defeat or victory, and the sooner we understand that, the sooner perhaps we can be united. Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, recently wrote a piece in the Washington Post describing the sad state of current political affairs. It was entitled ``Grand Illusion.'' In the piece he asserted: Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost 2 years off. This is coming, as he indicates in his article, just as ``American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad.'' He goes on to say that ``they've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia.'' This is appropriate advice. He says: Politicians in both parties should realize that success in this mission is in their interest, as well as the nation's. Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be responsible, and provide the moral and material support our forces need and expect. Despite many people's dissatisfaction with the war, I don't think a majority of Americans want us to withdraw, to retreat and admit defeat. Throughout the debate, we have also heard references and comparisons made to Vietnam, that this is a quagmire, that the war is unjust, poorly managed, it threatens our individual liberties, it is unwinnable, and the only option is to pull out. All of the very same things were said during the campaign against President Lincoln in 1864, with well over one-quarter of a million dead Americans; after the Union suffered 7,000 casualties in 30 short minutes at Cold Harbor; and until Sherman won in Atlanta. If you look at our history, anybody getting 24-hour television news during the battles Americans fought against the British in 1776, you would have had to say we were in worse shape than we are now. When you look at the conditions our troops were in before D-Day and all the things that went wrong, 24-hour news coverage would have convinced an overwhelming majority of the American people to forget it, pull the plug, let the Nazis have it. But if somebody used Vietnam as a model--and it should be used completely--I think it reminds people of the image associated with Vietnam that too many ignore. I suspect this is a historical photo that many of our murderous enemies dream would be superimposed over the rooftops of Baghdad. These are the people left behind. We left behind people. Some 2.5 million were murdered after we pulled out of Vietnam. This is, of course, the final, classic departure, people trying to get away. Those who didn't were slaughtered. Our enemies throughout the radical Islamist world are all too familiar with immediate withdrawal and retreat. We withdrew from Vietnam, we withdrew from Beirut, and we withdrew from Mogadishu. These repeated withdrawals signaled 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. And make no mistake about it, they are watching. They are watching to see what we will do in Iraq. These repeated withdrawals invited the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the bombings of our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, and eventually 9/11. None of these actions occurred because of our action to liberate Iraq. Five or six of these attacks occurred before President Bush took office, and George Bush did not invent the danger from radical Islam. Further, the notion of separating al-Qaida from the sectarian killers can only be contemplated from as far away as Washington because al- Qaida is targeting the mixed neighborhoods and has overtly promised sectarian violence to undermine the Iraqi Government and to weaken U.S. Government resolve. The Democratic resolution before us now is precisely what our enemies want to hear and, sadly, are expecting to hear. Here are some quotes from one of the people we ought to be reading more frequently, Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden said: We found that out from our brothers who fought the Americans in Somalia. They did not see it as a power worthy of any mention. . . . God gave them and the mujahideen success in Somalia and the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat and failure behind it. It achieved nothing. It left quicker than people had imagined. That is what Osama bin Laden said on October 21, 2001. In addition to that statement, he said on February 14, 2003: It has been made clear during our defending and fighting against the American enemy that this enemy's combat strategy is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war . . . which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the American soldier. . . . Likewise, let me remind you of the defeat of the American forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance was personified by a truck laden with explosives that struck the main military base of the U.S. Marines in Beirut, killing 242 soldiers--towards hell was their destination and what an evil destination that is. This is what Osama bin Laden thinks of us. He stated many times that Americans don't have the stomach for conflict and this Democratic resolution embodies that very notion. What Osama bin Laden and the enemies we are fighting against expect to see is Vietnam. Let's give General Petraeus more confidence. General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously. He stated that the effort in Iraq will have to be sustained to achieve its desired effect and that more troops are vital to advancing security. We confirmed him unanimously. Give him a chance. He reported last week that nine Iraqi reinforcement battalions have entered Baghdad. He pointed to a decrease in sectarian killings, the discovery of numerous weapons caches, and the capture of al-Qaida members. Al-Sadr has fled Sadr City, and al-Baghdadi was recently reported caught. Associated Press reporter Robert Reid recently reported General Petraeus walking through the streets of Hit, a Sunni city with a bloody past. Last month in the article, he reported: Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops swept through the city of about 120,000 people, arresting suspected insurgents and establishing three new police stations in the downtown area. Since then, the number of violent incidents has dropped from an average of 5 per day to 1.3 per day. Now that a relative level of security has been established, the important political and economic development work must begin. In the past, the United States had claimed similar victories in Hit, but those gains were lost because of lack of enough troops to sustain the province. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, while it is far too premature to declare that the new strategy has succeeded, it does indicate there is a possibility. As General Abizaid once testified, despair is not a policy. It must be given a chance to succeed, and this resolution would do nothing to achieve victory. The alternative of retreat and defeat would be disastrous. What are my colleagues who wish to see us leave Iraq thinking will happen once we do? The arguments for retreating before relative security is established because we grow tired of the war, because mistakes were made or because Americans allegedly want us to leave all ignore what the consequences will be if we do leave precipitously on a political withdrawal timetable. Those who are advocating for retreat and departure from Iraq absolutely must address this very difficult question. In other words, what is ``Plan Bravo,'' plan B, for those mandating retreat? Are we to redeploy forces back home only to have to redeploy them in much larger numbers 3, 4, 5 years from now, once Baghdad has turned into a base of operations and safe haven for al-Qaida? Will we endure the transfer of Islamofascist terrorism and violence occurring in the Middle East back to the homeland? Mr. President, I ask for an additional 60 seconds.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, are we going to bear witness to a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that would spread into a regional war throughout the Middle East? Will we sit idly by while a regional conflict ensues that would result in the death of thousands of civilians? What will happen when the price of oil goes up? Will we see radical Islam taking over more parts of the world? Will we hand them Iraq on a silver platter? Will we have to again deploy troops to the Middle East? To ignore these considerations and questions simply because they are not politically palatable is shortsighted at best and dangerous at the worst. Those who are attempting to end the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq will do anything but end. In fact, it will only grow more dangerous. Mr. President, I suggest that Mr. Kagan had it right. In his article, he also said there ought to be a plan B for the Washington Post and others who have projected and counted on defeat. What is your plan B if General Petraeus's works and you predicted so successfully it won't work? We need to put the money behind our troops, give General Petraeus the support for the new plan with money and support that effort underway. Our 130,000 to 150,000 American troops and their families at home are depending on us. They have a direct stake in this historic event, and I believe that fighting is necessary to prevail over evil. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I would like to commend Senators Lieberman and Collins for all their hard work on S. 4 and I would especially like to thank them for their support of my amendment calling for further congressional review and action with regard to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission identified many shortfalls, some in the intelligence community and some in congressional oversight. We can never ease the pain and anguish of the 9/11 families resulting from the deaths of their loved ones. It is possible, however, to do everything within our power to ensure more American families are not subjected to a similar nightmare. We owe it to the 9/11 families as well as the American people to adopt reforms that will improve intelligence collection and dissemination, as well as will improve congressional oversight. Putting our own house in order may not be popular, but it is the right thing to do. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member, as well as the members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to continue to improve U.S. intelligence and congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence. In closing, I would also like to thank Ms. Holly Idelson of Senator Lieberman's staff and Mr. Brandon Milhorn of Senator Collins's staff for their assistance to me and my staff. Both of these young people went out of their way to assist us, and I am grateful to them for their courteous demeanor and their professional conduct.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1129. This important legislation is necessary to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an arterial road in the Lemay area of St. Louis County, MO. This road, the Lemay connector road, is the lynchpin of the long-term recovery of that community and will open several abandoned industrial sites to new industrial, commercial and retail development and create thousands of new much-needed jobs. The road was identified as the highest priority for redeveloping the area in a federally-funded study conducted by the Missouri Department of Transportation.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I vividly recall the devastation that was caused by the the flooding in 1993 and one of the areas that was hardest hit was the community of Lemay. In response to that tragedy, Congress enacted an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. As a new member of that committee, I worked to appropriate supplemental funds for HUD's community development grants to compensate homeowners for losses and to clear the area. Property acquired with the funds, however, was required to be maintained for uses consistent with open space, recreation or wetlands management. This was a one-time requirement, and no other property acquired using CDBG funds before or since the 1994 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act has carried similar deed restrictions. Furthermore, I want to assure my colleagues that we are not establishing any precedent by adopting this legislation in part because of the unique situation in which properties became deed restricted and also because exceptions have been made to allow for roads and public works development on deed restricted lands.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my colleague from Missouri is correct that no Federal funds will be used for either construction or maintenance of this road. Furthermore, this road will become a county road and it will not be part of the Federal-aid system. Under current law, which this bill does not amend, the Lemay connector road is not an eligible use of Federal funding.