Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I simply say the Senator is exactly correct; 47 percent of our students do go on to Georgia Tech. I wish we could get more of them at the University of Georgia where they happened to let me go, but at Georgia Tech we are doing a terrific job of taking these bright young minds that are being developed, as we said earlier, not just at the eighth and ninth grade level, but thanks to you and the leadership of folks like you, at a much earlier age. Our GAMES program, incidentally, was put into effect and implemented by our former colleague Senator Zell Miller, when he was the Governor of our State, and somebody whom I know you worked very closely with over the years. It is a great concept. It is forward thinking, as this legislation is very forward thinking from the standpoint of making sure that these great minds are developed at a very early age. Again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his great work on this and I commend this legislation to all of our colleagues.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I take great pride in recognizing the Army Aviation Association of America's, AAAA, 50th anniversary and in honoring their countless historic and noble contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation. Army aviation members play a critical role in every combat theater worldwide, and AAAA has proven to be a means of unwavering support. This unique organization has been the mechanism for increased communication and professional development among Army aviators throughout the history of organic Army aviation and the Army Aviation Branch. This contribution has led to vast leaps in battlefield mobility, lethality, and flexibility for the U.S. Army. AAAA and its members have distinguished themselves with thousands of volunteer hours and dollars providing direct support and scholarships to Army aviation soldiers and their family members. I can say with certainty that AAAA has truly lived its mission of ``Supporting the U.S. Army Aviation Soldier and Family'' since its inception in 1957. I am pleased to publicly recognize this longstanding commitment to our military personnel and congratulate the Army Aviation Association of America on 50 years of service.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S. 372, the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill, in its current form. I believe, without amendment, this legislation will deteriorate the existing working relationship and trust the intelligence community has with Congress. I voted against this legislation in both the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee because I believed significant alterations needed to be made before I could offer my support. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am fully cognizant of the importance of passing an authorization bill to guide our intelligence community as well as to advise the Senate appropriations process. Passing an authorization bill reasserts much needed Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, and it ensures that the Senate is relevant on national security issues that are critically important. At this time, I question whether the Senate is serious about the need to examine all possible improvements to the bill or is willing to devote the time necessary to discuss and debate all amendments. Given the natural and conflicting interests involved, it is prudent that Congress act carefully and work with the executive branch to ensure that its needs are met, rather than hastily making demands through legislation that many provisions of this bill attempt to do. This will only create further friction between the two branches. I believe there are other ways to ensure effective oversight. Some sections of this bill, particularly sections 304 and 107, are problematic to me, and I believe they will not further meaningful Congressional oversight. Therefore, I have offered amendments to strike these sections and urge my colleagues to support my amendments. Let me detail my concerns with these two sections. First, section 304 requires the intelligence community to notify all of the members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees whenever the House and Senate leadership and committee leaders are briefed on highly sensitive intelligence or covert actions. It requires that the notification include a statement of the reasons why only the leadership was informed, as well as a description of the main features of the matter. There is a history of compromise and cooperation between the executive and legislative branches regarding the sharing of sensitive intelligence with Congress. The President has the duty to protect intelligence sources and methods. One such way is to limit the number of people who are privy to the information. Congress recognized this duty in the National Security Act, which states that information be shared: with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources or methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters. The reporting requirement in section 304 may disclose the very sensitive information the President has determined only the leadership has a need to know. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize there are some highly sensitive matters I do not have a need to know, and I support having limited notification when absolutely necessary to protect the information. Frequently the Congressional leadership will be informed of tightly controlled classified operations in which limiting knowledge of them is appropriate. Many of us do not have a need to know about various sensitive operations which, if leaked, could result in lives being lost as well as the termination of Congressional access to information. Additionally, I have confidence in the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I count on the leaders of the committee to be responsible for determining when additional access to information is warranted and for requesting that additional members be briefed as necessary. Section 304 seeks to abandon these practices which have been refined over three decades of aggressive Congressional oversight. Next, section 107 requires the public disclosure of the National Intelligence Program budget requests and Congressional authorizations and appropriations for the intelligence community. Disclosing these figures to the public also discloses them to our enemies who will be watching for fluctuations in these figures, which may damage intelligence sources and methods over time. Additionally, declassifying the overall budget for the intelligence community may lead others to demand that each agency declassify their budget. No doubt this would have grave effects on the capabilities of our intelligence agencies. For those reasons I oppose S. 372 in its current form and the managers' amendment to it. I urge my colleagues to support my amendments to strengthen this bill. Fair Tax Act Mr. President, today is the deadline for all taxes to be filed. As many millions of Americans rush to file their taxes, I rise to bring attention to our horribly broken, overly complex, and unfair American tax system. I have and will continue to support significant reform of the Tax Code in this country, as I have consistently done during my service in Congress. Accordingly, I have recently introduced the Fair Tax Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, Senator Coburn, and Senator Cornyn, because we are in desperate need of tax reform. Imagine the economic freedom and purchasing power provided by a tax system that would allow us to retain 100 percent of our earnings while maintaining the benefits of Government-sponsored programs, and allowing them to flourish. Such would be the case under the system proposed in the Fair Tax Act. The Fair Tax Act would create a national sales tax as the primary source of Federal revenue, would eliminate our current archaic and inefficient Tax Code, and would replace it with a simpler, fairer means of collecting revenue. Specifically, the Fair Tax Act would repeal the individual income tax, the corporate income tax, capital gains tax, all payroll taxes, self-employment tax, and the estate and gift taxes in lieu of a 23-percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. Elimination of these inefficient taxing mechanisms would bring about equality and simplicity to our overly complex tax system. Moreover, the Fair Tax Act would abrogate any double taxation that occurs under our current tax system because it would provide tax relief for business-to- business transactions. These transactions, including used-product transactions that have already been taxed, are not subject to the sales tax. More importantly, under the Fair Tax Act, the Federal Government's revenue would go unchanged. Social Security and Medicare benefits would remain untouched under the Fair Tax bill, and there would be no financial reductions to either one of these vital programs. Instead, the source of the trust fund revenue for these two programs would be replaced simply by consumption tax revenue instead of payroll tax revenue. Finally, under the Fair Tax Act, every American would receive a monthly rebate check equal to spending, up to the Federal poverty level according to the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines. This rebate would ensure that no American pays taxes on the purchase of necessities. This is a critical component. Invest in America Act Mr. President, I also rise today as an original cosponsor of the Invest in America Act. While I firmly believe significant overhaul of the Tax Code is the best way to achieve absolute fairness and transparency in our tax system, until we actually get to that point, we simply cannot allow the current rate reductions and other provisions of the 2001-2003 tax relief packages to expire, which is what the Democrats have proposed in their budget for the 2008 fiscal year. This would be a drastic blow to the economy and a misguided step in the wrong direction. The Invest in America Act would make the individual tax rates permanent. The lower rates have been essential to our continued economic growth over the past several years, and have encouraged Americans to work harder, be more productive, and retain more of their hard-earned money. Additionally, this bill corrects current wrongs in our tax codes, such as the death tax and the AMT. It would make the repeal of the death tax permanent, and would save more than 130,000 families each year from confronting a loss of the family farms, ranches, or family- owned businesses. It would permanently repeal the AMT which, while designed to ensure every American pays some minimum tax, is in fact now hitting more and more middle-income families, and this it was not designed to do. Most significant to the growth of our economy, this bill would also make the current reduced capital gains and dividend rates permanent. Since the reduction of these investment rates in 2003, it has become easier for new businesses, and existing ones, to attract the capital they need to start, succeed, and expand. Moreover, with greater than half of all Americans owning stock, middle-class families, seniors, and other Americans are greatly benefitting from these lower rates, including the 5-percent rate, which drops to zero percent in 2008. The proposals in this bill would also help American families by making permanent the increased child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, the adoption tax credit, the tuition deduction, and the teacher deduction. These provisions, along with other proposals in the Invest in America Act, make permanent the R&D tax credit and the increased small business expensing rates, enabling both the taxpayer and the American economy to grow. Most importantly, the Invest in America Act sets forth a tax system that would gave back to those who invest in the strengthening of the American economy. We need to overhaul our tax system, impose fairness, and implement policies that encourage economic growth rather than stifle it. That is what Georgians want and deserve, and that is what Americans want and deserve. Virginia Tech Tragedy I rise today with a very heavy heart to extend my condolences to the families who lost loved ones as a result of yesterday's tragic shootings on the Virginia Tech campus. One of those victims includes a young man, 22-year-old Ryan Clark of Martinez, GA, who served as a resident adviser at West Ambler Johnston dormitory where the first shooting occurred. Ryan was set to graduate this spring with a degree in biology and English, and he hoped to pursue a Ph.D., a pretty amazing young man from an academic standpoint. In his spare time, he also helped out the disadvantaged children in the area, as well as disabled children. On this particular day, he came to the rescue of the first victim and, as a result, became a victim himself. I wish to convey my extreme sorrow to his family as they try to grasp the reality and gain a better understanding of what has happened. While he was still in his very young years, it is clear that he had already impacted so many lives and in so many different ways. While I know that words may be of little comfort at this time, the Clark family and all of the families involved and the Virginia Tech community will remain in my prayers as we try to find peace in the coming days. It is difficult to fathom how something like this could happen. Words can't fully describe the grief we all feel as the weight of this tragedy settles over our Nation. My prayer is that through faith and resolve, our country will emerge from this disaster in unity and strength as together we find healing. While I know that we are still learning the facts surrounding these despicable acts, it is my hope that we can all work together and renew our commitment to ensure that our communities and schools are safe from similar future events. I join my colleagues in the Senate who have spoken so eloquently on this matter and our entire Nation in mourning the 32 lives lost yesterday, and I pray for the strength of our country during this time of grief and sorrow.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Isakson- Coleman stem cell research bill. For me, this issue is personal on many levels, and it weighs heavily on my heart, my mind, and my conscience. I have given great care in coming to my decision to be a cosponsor of this bill and have spent much time reflecting, thinking, and praying about making the right decision on this issue of stem cell research because it is a very controversial but yet a very forward-leaning issue. Today we are debating the various types of research and what many view as the potential to cure diseases. There is no question that everyone here is supportive of medical research and, in particular, of stem cell research. However, there is still so much to be learned from science, so many discoveries yet to be made, and so much that we still do not know. I am aware that there are very promising alternatives to embryonic stem cell research, such as deriving stem cells from umbilical cord blood and bone marrow. Those cells have demonstrated the capability of turning into most tissue types, thus helping to provide the basis for advanced research to find cures for diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's disease, sickle cell anemia, and heart disease. Research from adult stem cells has saved thousands of lives, and funding for this research certainly should continue. While I am familiar with the advancements made in the adult stem cell research, there is still a lack of scientific evidence to show that embryonic stem cell research yields the strong results we have from the adult stem cell lines. There is also the issue of whether taxpayer dollars should be used for research that many believe is morally wrong. While the morality of embryonic stem cell research is an issue for many Americans, including myself, I also believe there is a constant need to continue working to advance science and medical research. As a country, it is important that we stay on the cutting edge of medical research and remain globally competitive, because the United States offers the best health care in the world. This legislation, introduced by Senators Isakson and Coleman, will not only advance science, it will allow for embryonic research to take place using non-viable embryos. The cells in those embryos have naturally quit dividing and therefore would not be used for fertilization. Even if these embryos were frozen or saved, no practicing physician would ever attempt to implant them because the developmental stages have naturally stopped. This legislation will allow the Department of Health and Human Services to extend Federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines only if the lines were derived without harming a viable embryo. I believe this approach is an effective way to provide for advancements in science and give them to those who are waiting for cures without compromising the value of life. Many of us have personally benefitted or had family members who benefitted from the advancements made in modern medicine over the past 5, 10, or 20 years. I think we are all grateful for the progress that has been made. It is my most sincere hope that we continue to see monumental steps made in medical research--stem cell and otherwise--and that we find cures for those suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injuries. Make no mistake about it, if you sincerely, as a Member of this body, want to see an advancement in the area of medical stem cell research, this is the alternative you must vote for because this is a bill, if it gets the required number of votes, which will go to the President's desk, and it is the bill which the President will sign, and we can move forward on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. I am proud to be a cosponsor and intend to vote for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield my unused time back to the manager of the bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to delineate exactly why I voted against this supplemental. We are in some very difficult and complex times in the world today, and certainly the situation in Iraq is right at the forefront. Americans have always stood tall when someone tries to interrupt our ability to exercise our rights of freedom, and right now we are fighting a global war on terrorism, with Iraq being at the center of it. For individuals in this body to think we can micromanage a military conflict from the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives is simply wrong. We have military leadership on the ground in Iraq. That leadership is recommending against imposing timelines. We have civilian leaders who have significant military experience, both from the State Department level as well as the Pentagon level. These leaders have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and every single one of those individuals, whether they were Republican or Democrat, has said imposing timelines is not the way to go. Every military officer who has come to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee has said imposing timelines for withdrawal from Iraq will simply embolden the enemy. The enemy will lay in wait until we remove ourselves from Iraq and then all genocide will break loose in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission--which so many people have relied upon--clearly stated that imposing timelines for withdrawal in Iraq is not the way to go. This vote today is simply the wrong signal to send to an enemy. The message needs to be that we are going to take you out; that we are not going to let you impose yourself on freedom and democracy. This vote today simply does not do that. I very strongly disagree with the provisions in this supplemental relative to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and that is the reason I did vote against this supplemental we so desperately need to fund our troops, to fund the operation in Iraq, as well as to take care of some other measures. One of those other measures included in this supplemental is critically important to my State, and it has to do with the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was designed to help uninsured children across America. Unfortunately, it has gotten into the arena now of not only providing coverage for children but also coverage for some adults. Frankly, I don't agree with that, but I don't have a problem with it in this supplemental. We will deal with that issue in the reauthorization of this program. We do have a provision in the supplemental that would cover the shortfall for the SCHIP program, which in Georgia we refer to as PeachCare. It would have provided the money to fund a shortfall in SCHIP between now and the end of the fiscal year for States such as mine that are going to experience this shortfall. Georgia happens to be the first of 14 States that is going to have this shortfall, and we have had to take measures--and our legislature, thank goodness, has done that--to make up this shortfall. In the interim, between now and the time this bill is going to come back to this body for reconsideration after being vetoed by the President, Georgia's taxpayers are going to have to fund a greater portion of the SCHIP program than they should have to. So I have filed a bill today that is going to take care of that. It is going to provide immediate funding for the shortfall in Georgia, as well as all of the other shortfall States in the country today that, while they may not experience a shortfall as we speak, it is coming within the next 30 to 60 to 90 days to 13 other States. On behalf of Senator Isakson and myself, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1022, introduced earlier today; that the bill be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I voted against the budget resolution for the 2008 fiscal year because it contained record-breaking tax increases on hard-working American families in a time when we should be putting more money back into the pockets of taxpayers, not taking it out. This year's budget resolution is historical because it proposes the largest tax increase ever--$916 billion in tax increases on the backs of the American people. This is almost four times the amount of the second largest tax hike in history, $240 billion proposed in 1993. By letting progrowth tax policies expire, this resolution reaches deep into the pockets of hard-working families and seeks to reduce the take- home pay of a family of four earning $50,000 by as much as 6 percent. Additionally, this budget ignores the concerns of future generations. Proposed tax hikes would slow the economy, and stifle investment and job creation. Since 2003, over 7 million new jobs have been created. The U.S. economy is experiencing 5 uninterrupted years of growth, and since the tax cuts of 2003, the rate of economic growth has more than doubled. Tax increases move us in the wrong direction and that is why I am opposing this budget resolution--because it is wrong for the economy, wrong for hard-working families, and wrong for America. Despite the inclusion of funding for several essential programs in this budget resolution, it is imperative that we realize the effect of this proposal as a whole. When we examine closely the entire package, it is clear that the tax increases on Americans included in this budget will serve to stunt our continued economic growth. Therefore, I opposed this budget resolution. We simply cannot afford to appease short-term priorities at the expense of long-term stability and prosperity. The success of our economy depends on and demands from us fair tax policies which enable hard-working Americans to prosper, leading us as a country to fiscal stability.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that relates to the SCHIP program we enacted 10 years ago that is designed to cover uninsured children. Today there are 12 States that cover nonpregnant adults with SCHIP funding. CBO has estimated that eliminating the differential match on nonpregnant adults saves $400 million over 5 years, and $900 million over 10 years. This is a program for children, not adults. I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 120, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight to discuss for a few minutes amendment No. 536, which has been filed by my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and myself. In offering this amendment to the budget resolution, we truly believe it is a fair amendment and puts children first, in the way the State Children's Health Insurance Program was intended. When SCHIP was created in 1997, it was instituted to do exactly what the name states: provide health care coverage to uninsured children. I do not believe you will find anyone here who disagrees with that purpose because it provides health insurance to hard-working families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance. There has been a lot of discussion about the long-term aspects of that program lately, and rightfully so. However, some States are using their SCHIP funding to cover adults, and that is not the intention of this program. In fact, three States have more adults as enrollees than children. There are 12 States that will spend almost $807 million of their SCHIP money on more than 671,000 adults this year. When we talk about children's health care, two of the components that are critical include dental care and mental health care. That is the specific focus of our amendment. Our proposal would eliminate States in receiving an enhanced SCHIP matching rate for adults who are covered under the SCHIP program. If States continue to choose to insure adults with SCHIP funds, they will receive a lower Federal match instead of the normal SCHIP match. We think this approach makes the most sense because SCHIP was created to cover children. The increased Federal match was created as an incentive for States to cover these kids, not adults. This new lower match rate for adults will free up funding to create a budget-neutral reserve fund to provide for dental and mental health benefits for children. So, again, our amendment simply says this: If States want to use their SCHIP funds to cover adults, which is a decision States may choose to make, they will receive the Medicaid matching rate. We are not saying the States should not provide health insurance coverage for adults who need it. At the same time it is important to emphasize that SCHIP funding is for kids. Our amendment uses this funding intended for children for two very important components of children's health care, that being dental care and mental health. I believe we must craft policies to ensure the greatest number of children are provided quality health care and quality dental care. I was extremely saddened to hear recently of a 12-year-old boy in Prince George's County, MD, who died from a toothache and an inability to find proper care. I do not know whether this child was on an SCHIP program or was on Medicaid. But this is only one example of the need for increased access to dental care for children. It is heartbreaking and inexcusable that something as tragic as this could happen, when a routine tooth extraction may have saved this young boy's life. Parents know and understand that things as routine as dental care are critically important to a child's overall health. Tooth decay remains a prevalent, chronic disease, and is the single most common childhood disease nationwide. It is five times as common as asthma, and, unfortunately, minority, low-income, and geographically isolated children suffer disproportionately from this disease. Eighty percent of all tooth decay is found in only 25 percent of children. These are the children the SCHIP program was created to help. We can and we must do better for these kids. This amendment does exactly what we ought to be doing with SCHIP, namely providing health insurance coverage for children, not adults. I urge my colleagues to do what is right and support this amendment. Amendment No. 619 Mr. President, let me very quickly talk about one other amendment I have filed. It is amendment No. 619. This particular amendment deals with the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant Program, which is commonly referred to as the Byrne/JG Program. It is an amendment which Senator Feinstein, Senator Isakson, Senator Graham, and I have filed. The Byrne/JG Program is the primary provider of Federal criminal justice funding to State and local jurisdictions. The funding supports all components of the criminal justice system from multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to community crime prevention programs, to substance abuse programs, prosecution initiatives, domestic violence programs, and information-sharing initiatives. I will tell you that our law enforcement officials, our sheriffs, our prosecutors, our drug court professionals, and many of our public servants in the law enforcement arena rely on this funding to make our communities safer. The results they get with this funding are tangible and real. In February of last year, the Iowa Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy conducted a survey to obtain a clearer, quantifiable, and more complete national picture of the Byrne/JG program's impact on drug and criminal efforts in America. This survey focused on the 2004 grant year and found that drug enforcement task forces funded by the Byrne/JG program in 45 States made more than 221,000 drug arrests. The achievements of those multijurisdictional drug enforcement task forces are impressive. For example, 45 States reported seizing almost 18,000 kilograms of cocaine, with an estimated consumer street value of over $1.6 billion. Forty States reported seizing just shy of 5,500 kilograms of methamphetamine, with an estimated street value of $518 million. The States participating in this survey reported the total value of drugs seized at over $12 billion. This figure represents more than $63 dollars in seized drugs for every dollar spent on drug task forces. This is indeed an amendment which will reinstate the level of funding for the Byrne/JG Program to last year's level. We are not asking it to be any higher than that. By doing that, we will allow our law enforcement community to continue to provide the type of safety and protection citizens all across America want. Before I yield the floor, I wish to note several well-respected organizations, including the National Narcotics Officers Association Coalition, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys' Association, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the National Criminal Justice Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police support this robust funding for the program. I encourage my colleagues to support amendment No. 619. Mr. President, I ask that my entire statement be inserted into the Record.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Casey, I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes, that I be followed by Senator Isakson for up to 10 minutes, and Senator Gregg for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Arkansas for a forceful, correct, and direct argument on this issue. Here we go again. This is the annual debate we have over whether the farm bill should be rewritten during budget resolution, which is what was tried last time, when the appropriate place to write the farm bill is during debate on the farm bill. That is going to take place later this year. Once this budget is completed, we will have the numbers to move ahead in deciding what the new 5-year farm bill will be like. We are in the sixth year of the current farm bill that was written in 2002. Yet here we are, in the last year of the farm bill, debating a major provision of that legislation. Frankly, if one goes to farmers all across America--and I say this because I have done it. Senator Grassley, who is my dear friend, has not. I held eight field hearings all across America last summer as chairman of the Senate Ag Committee in which we asked farmers: What do you think about the 2002 farm bill? We even got specific and talked about payment limits: What do you think about the payment limit provision? There is a general, overwhelming consensus all across America that the 2002 farm bill is working exactly the way farmers and ranchers wanted it to work; that is, it has been a very market-oriented farm bill. In years when prices have been low, there have been Government payments to farmers. In years when prices have been high, there have been a minimal number of payments going to farmers. As a result of that farm bill being very market oriented, we have saved $17 billion over the projected amount of the expenditure in the farm bill from 2002. Nobody is talking about that. Nobody is talking about the fact that our farmers have been very efficient. They have done whatever is necessary to go back and rework their operations to make sure they maximize efficiency. As a result, they have saved that $17 billion. What Senator Grassley has done today is to stand up and say: If you make this change, and we limit these big payments to farmers, we are going to save $486 million. The fact is, he is not going to save one dime because what he does is, he takes that $486 million and spends it elsewhere. So we are saving not one dime with the passage of this amendment. What does this amendment do? It takes the 2002 farm bill and interrupts it during the last year of the farm bill so that farmers and ranchers across America, and the bankers who have financed those farmers and ranchers, now are going to be in a state of flux as to whether what we decided in 2002 was going to be proposed for our farmers and ranchers for a 6-year period of time will, in fact, be lived up to by the U.S. Congress. The appropriate time and place to debate any payment limit proposal is during reauthorization. That is going to be coming up shortly. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized a commission on payment limitations for agriculture. That commission has already been referred to by Senator Grassley. The purpose of this commission was to conduct a study on the potential impact of further payment limitations on direct payments, countercyclical payments, as well as the marketing assistance loan benefits on farm income, land values, rural communities, agribusiness infrastructure, planting decisions of producers affected, and supply and prices of covered and other agricultural commodities. In other words, this commission was to look at all aspects of farming and decide what would be the effect of changing payment limits on agriculture in general. The first recommendation of the commission stated: Any substantial changes should take place with reauthorization of the next farm bill. No other aspect of Federal farm policy has been studied as extensively as payment limitations. The top recommendation of those who studied this issue was not to make any change. I admit I come from a State where we would be negatively impacted by tighter payment limits. I want to take note of the commission members. This was a balanced panel from all across the Nation. The commission consisted of 10 members. They were from Kansas, Texas, Mississippi, Illinois, North Dakota, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, and USDA. They agreed to recommend that no substantial changes in payment limits should take place outside of the reauthorization of the farm bill. Another recommendation of the commission stated as follows: Changes in payment limits should be sensitive to differences in commodities, regions, and existing agribusiness infrastructure. We talk about where the major portion of the payment limits issue comes from. It actually comes from all over the country. But farmers in the Southeast will be negatively impacted, probably more so than most others. Guess where the largest number of payments goes to farmers. It doesn't go to my home State of Georgia. It goes to Senator Grassley's State of Iowa. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not because I know he has farmers who get dirt under their fingernails. They know how to change oil in their tractors. They know how to farm their farms the way they can most effectively derive an income from them, and they deserve to have support when times are tough. I have no problem with that. They are doing exactly what the farm bill allows them to do and that is absolutely fine. One common misconception in regard to farm program payments is that 10 percent of farmers--and this has been stated today--receive 80 to 90 percent of farm program payments. That is simply wrong. According to Kansas State University Economics Professor Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh, those numbers are far from the truth. It should be noted that Dr. Flinchbaugh was chairman of the USDA Commission on the Application of Payment Limits. Dr. Flinchbaugh makes the point that small farms, those defined with gross sales of less than $100,000, make up 84 percent of the farms in the United States. They receive 30.5 percent of the payments while producing 21 percent of the food supply. Medium-sized farms, which are defined as farms with sales between $100,000 and $500,000, comprise 12.2 percent of total farms while producing 28 percent of the food supply and receive 42.7 percent of farm program payments. Large farms that have sales in excess of $500,000 and consist of 3.8 percent of the farms, receive 27 percent of farm program payments and provide over 50 percent of the food supply. In the words of Dr. Flinchbaugh: These programs are designed for the medium-sized farmers. They've done what they were supposed to do. So what's the issue? It's a farce. My point is that Senator Grassley's amendment is not simply a budget- saving measure; it is a complex issue that deserves thorough discussion when all farm policies are reviewed later this year, not during the budget debate. The Grassley amendment substantially alters farm policy rules that farmers and their bankers expect to be in place through the life of this farm bill. His amendment fails to recognize differences in commodities, regions, as well as agribusiness infrastructure. Senator Grassley blatantly ignores the recommendations of the commission that studied this issue extensively, an issue that has been studied more than any other aspect of Federal farm policy. Let me close by saying the Senator from North Dakota, who is also a great friend of agriculture and a good friend of mine and I have great respect for him, brought up the fact that dead farmers are receiving payments. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas. If that is the case, then that is the individual who ought to be gone after, not the payment limits in the farm bill. But if somebody is getting a payment that ought not to receive a payment, there ought to be a fraud charge filed and pursued against that particular individual. That is easy enough to do. If anybody has the names, if they get them to me, I will get them in the right hands, and they are going to be pursued from a fraud standpoint. That is the issue involved there, not whether payment limits are a problem with those particular individuals. The other issue, we talk about farm payments in general. I think all of my farmers in the southern part of the United States would just as soon not get farm payments. The fact is, though, the Europeans pay subsidies, true subsidies in the amount of four times greater than the payments that are made under the farm bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Grassley amendment at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think I have 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we all know and understand that Americans are deeply concerned about the war in Iraq. We all represent the finest and bravest men and women across this great country who put themselves in harm's way to protect our very way of life. We all want our brave men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to come home as soon as possible. Members of Georgia's military community have given mightily to our efforts in the Middle East. In fact, members of the 3rd Infantry Division, headquartered at Fort Stewart, GA, are heading to Iraq for the third time as we speak, and I wish to underscore how much we appreciate them and their families. These resolutions which the Democrats continue to put forth undermine these men and women. Any attempt to set a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, as the latest resolution does, will embolden the enemy and tell them exactly how long they need to wait until they are free to take over and wreak havoc in Iraq. I understand the desire to have the Iraqis take responsibility for their own country and step up to the plate in terms of taking the political, economic, and military actions necessary to secure Iraq, and I strongly support that goal. However, this resolution is the wrong way to accomplish it. These resolutions--and I believe there have been about 17 put forth over the course of the last couple of months--simply send the wrong message to our troops, and they send the wrong message to the enemy. Winston Churchill once said: Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature. I think that sums up what is going on here today. These resolutions only serve to micromanage the war by a political body which simply is unable to do it effectively. We have a Commander in Chief who is entrusted with managing and leading our military during wartime, and the Commander in Chief's new plan for Iraq deserves a chance to succeed. These resolutions are designed to ensure that the President's plan fails, not that it succeeds. Also, these resolutions are completely contradictory to the Senate's support for GEN David Petraeus, our new commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. No Senator opposed General Petraeus's nomination. I have not heard anyone criticize him, and rightly so. We need to give General Petraeus and his counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq a chance to succeed. The people of Georgia, myself included, want General Petraeus to succeed. We understand the consequences of failure, and there is no question the latest resolution we are considering in this body will not help him succeed. This resolution advocates transitioning U.S. forces in Iraq to protecting U.S. coalition personnel, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting counterterrorism operations, and calls for a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to stabilize Iraq. Many people say the situation in Iraq requires a political and not a military solution. I strongly agree with that position; however, it is not possible to have a political solution or to make political progress if citizens live in an unstable and unsafe society. Some level of order and stability must be in place before a political solution can take hold. In America, we take order and stability for granted because we live in a country that is extremely safe, secure, and stable. However, Iraq is not the United States. Iraqis do not live in a secure and stable society, and order and stability must be in place before there can be any hope for a long-term political solution. The additional troops we are sending are meant to create that order and stability, particularly in Baghdad. We need to give this effort a chance to succeed, and we need to create stability and order before we can be hopeful about a long-term political solution. The Reid resolution opposes the President's plan without offering any concrete alternative. It opposes the mission which the Senate has unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to carry out, and it will not serve to help our troops and our commander in Iraq succeed in the mission we have sent them on to accomplish. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senate amendment No. 389 offered by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. It is appropriate that this amendment be offered to the 9/11 bill as it is a first step in implementing one of the few outstanding recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission--to reform congressional oversight of the intelligence community. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important amendment and thank Senator Bond for his leadership on this issue. The 9/11 Commission suggested that the rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate lack the power, influence and sustained capability to effectuate oversight of the intelligence community. As such, they recommended that Congress establish one committee in each House of Congress with both authorizing and appropriation authority for the intelligence community or create a joint committee based on the model of the old Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Just this year, the House of Representatives amended their rules to create a new panel on the Appropriations Committee with members of both the Intelligence Committee and the Appropriations Committee. While the House provision does not meet the 9/11 Commission recommendation in full, the Senate has not acted at all. As every Member of this body knows, reforming Congress, especially the Senate, can be difficult and will face much resistance. However, the Senate should not be an exception to government reform after September 11, 2001. We should lead by example. We owe the American public and the families of those lost on September 11, 2001 to continue to improve intelligence collection and coordination as well as to improve congressional oversight. I know many have ideas on reform in the Senate, and we should explore those. We need to find the most effective way to conduct vital, and often difficult, intelligence oversight. That is why this amendment is so important--it asks the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to each review the 9/11 Commission's recommendation. Members of the Senate with expertise in reform and intelligence will review the oversight process and develop recommendations on the most valuable reforms. In conclusion, I hope all my colleagues will support this amendment and work with the committees in the Senate to improve the congressional oversight process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President I rise today in opposition to this final bill because I believe one of the provisions included will greatly undermine our homeland security efforts. Specifically, the provision would mandate that the Transportation Security Administration have the ability to collectively bargain with Government unions representing airport security screeners. This will create unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy and tie the hands of our security personnel. While this provision may be beneficial to the union bosses, it is not beneficial to Georgians and the American people. TSA must have the flexibility to respond when our security is threatened. In this current era of unpredictable threats, TSA must be able to continually change its systems to meet the changing security environment. If we mandate that TSA must negotiate with the unions for every change in circumstance, it will negate the agency's ability to respond quickly to terrorist threats and other emergencies. I just don't think that is common sense. In fact, when TSA was created, the agency was given the authority to decide whether to engage in collective bargaining with airport baggage screeners, and TSA concluded that such negotiations would weaken its ability to protect the American people. This authority was not recommended in the 9/11 Commission Report. Now let's be clear--the issue here is not whether TSA employees should be allowed to join a union but whether TSA must collectively bargain with Government unions before it changes personnel and policies. At the present time, airport screeners may voluntarily join a union and TSA will withhold union dues at an employee's request. The union, however, has no standing to negotiate with TSA on behalf of their members. I would just note that this restriction is not unique to TSA. Other Federal agencies that collect and respond to intelligence in an effort to address homeland security, such as the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service, all have the same restriction. This is done as an acknowledgement that highly sensitive security information should only be released on a need-to-know basis. Collective bargaining, conversely, would require the release of sensitive information to external negotiators and arbitrators, which would increase the risk of sensitive information getting in the wrong hands. TSA must be able to quickly shift employees based on intelligence and airport traffic demands while modifying procedures at a moment's notice. For example, this past August, following an attempted United Kingdom airline bombing, TSA overhauled its procedures in less than 12 hours to prevent terrorists from smuggling liquid explosives onto any U.S. flights. Not only did this flexibility ensure that no U.S. flights were cancelled due to the change, most importantly, it ensured the safety and security of the United States. This past December, during a major snowstorm in Denver, local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport. However, due to the current policies, TSA was able to deploy officers from Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Colorado Springs to the Denver airport. This deployment allowed TSA to open every security lane in Denver around the clock at the airport until they were back to normal operations. So in circumstances like these, TSA cannot spend days, weeks, or months negotiating over officer assignments and new schedules before implementing them. We should remember that TSA exists to protect American lives, and its focus must remain on homeland security and not on labor negotiations. I am extremely concerned that the provision included in this bill will lead to a change in culture within the agency, and I just don't think our hard-working TSA employees gain much from this. I am proud of our dedicated TSA employees in Georgia, and we already have a ``pay for performance'' system in place that weeds out nonperformers. The system is based upon technical competence, readiness for duty, and operational performance. But under the proposed changes, the most effective security employees will be punished by the change in pay practices. Finally, we should be concerned about what this means to passengers and the American taxpayers. The collective bargaining system would not reward good screening performance or customer service. Additionally, implementing the infrastructure for collective bargaining would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and TSA would be forced to relocate thousands of personnel. For Georgians, fewer personnel means fewer screening lanes and longer lines at airports like Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta. Our national security is too important to risk. It is no accident that we have not had a terrorist attack on domestic soil since September 11, 2001. But that is not to say that it can't happen again. The terrorists only have to get it right once. But we have to get it right every time. So let's not hinder our ability to do that. Our homeland security infrastructure must be able to operate in real time. We should not tie the very hands we rely upon to protect us here at home. It is disappointing that this provision is included in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose final passage.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the amendment proposed by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. It has been 5\1/2\ years since the horrendous terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. Since that attack, many improvements have been made in the way law enforcement communities around the country are combating terrorism, but it is very important that we continue to give our law enforcement community every tool they need to protect Americans. Americans expect Congress to do everything possible to improve the Nation's security, and Senator Cornyn's amendment adds to the important and necessary tools needed by law enforcement to prosecute the war against terrorism. I would like to take just a few minutes to touch on some of the important provisions that are included in this amendment. The first issue I would like to talk about is punishing those who recruit or assist terrorists. For the first time, we will be able to target terrorist recruiters-- those who seek out and try to persuade individuals to commit terrorist acts against the United States and our allies. It is no secret that al-Qaida attempts to seek out individuals living within the United States who can operate freely here and who do not necessarily fit the profile of those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks to join their cadre of jihadists. Even the 9/11 Commission Report discusses al-Qaida's ability to recruit: Mosques, schools, and boarding houses served as recruiting stations in many parts of the world, including the United States. For example, an early bin Laden organization, al-Khifa, recruited American Muslims to fight in Afghanistan. Al-Khifa had offices in my own State of Georgia as well as Chicago, New York, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Tucson. The amendment also creates a new offense for aiding the family or associates of a terrorist in order to target those who give money to families of suicide bombers after such bombings. Any person convicted of doing any of these things should face severe punishment. This is not uncommon. We saw Saddam Hussein offering up to $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine as a reward for their sons' and daughters' terrorist attacks. This type of support promotes and encourages suicide bombers and simply cannot be tolerated. The American people are probably shocked that these offenses are not already on the books. Support for this amendment will send a strong message that this country has not forgotten how September 11, 2001, changed this world and that we will do everything in our power to prosecute terrorists and those who support them. A second key provision in this amendment deals with closing a loophole in the law that allows suspected terrorists to stay in the United States after their visas have been revoked on terrorist grounds. In June of 2003, a GAO report revealed that suspected terrorists can and, in fact, do stay in the United States after their visas have been revoked because they are suspected of terrorist activity. After the loophole came to light, the GAO found that more than 100 people were granted visas that were later revoked because there was suspected terrorist activity. Under current law, decisions to approve or deny visas by consular officers are nonreviewable and deemed final. However, if a visa is approved and the individual enters the United States and then the visa is revoked while that person is still in the United States, the revocation decision is reviewed by the U.S. courts. Giving an alien on U.S. soil the ability to appeal a revocation decision when it is based on terrorist-suspected grounds virtually annihilates the effectiveness of this antiterrorism tool. To begin, visa revocations are not taken lightly, according to the State Department. A State Department spokesman made this comment: A consular officer does not have the authority to revoke a visa based on suspected ineligibility, or based on derogatory information that is insufficient to support an ineligibility finding. A consular revocation must be based on an actual finding that the alien is ineligible for a visa. In addition, each alien gets the opportunity to explain their case, so once a consular officer notifies an alien of his intent to revoke, the consular officer must give the alien the opportunity to show why the visa should not be revoked. I ask my colleagues to recall the 9/11 Commission Report's finding on our flawed visa policies. We know that the 19 hijackers used 364 aliases and lied on their visa applications when they applied for 23 and obtained 22 visas. Allowing aliens to remain on U.S. soil with revoked visas is a national security concern, and this amendment will close this loophole in the law so they cannot do it again. A third issue this amendment deals with is the detention of deportable aliens. The Supreme Court has limited the period of detention of deportable aliens to 6 months after a final order of removal is issued. As a result, when the difficulty in removing an alien lasts up to 6 months, the U.S. Government has to release the alien into the public. We have all heard the deplorable stories of some of the horrific acts committed by deportable aliens who were released into the United States after they were not removed from the country within the 6-month limit. This amendment would allow the Government to keep these aliens in custody until they can be removed and prevent them from harming American citizens. I want to close by thanking my colleague from Texas for the work he has done on this amendment and his effort in making our country safer. This is what the American people want, expect, and deserve. This is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from Colorado for once again bringing this amendment forward. Those of us who come from rural areas understand what our men and women do every day in rural America from the standpoint of enforcing the laws of this country. This amendment goes a longways toward supporting their efforts. My colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and I are original cosponsors and strong supporters of this measure which I believe does fulfill a great need in rural America. The amendment creates a Rural Policing Institute that would be administered by the Office of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, also known as FLETC, located in Glynco, GA. Despite the fact that a majority of America's law enforcement agencies serve rural communities and small towns such as those across Georgia and Colorado, there is no entity dedicated specifically to training rural law enforcement officers. Currently, FLETC can only meet a small fraction of the demand for rural training. Rural law enforcement agencies have to work with fewer resources, fewer personnel, and are often forced to go without the training they need and rightly deserve. They cannot afford to do without men and women who may be called away for an extended period of time to undergo training, and that is why we need to bring the training directly to them--training otherwise they would not have access to. There is no question--and I hear this whenever I travel around my State--that our local law enforcement in rural areas is called upon more and more to prepare for different kinds of threats in this new security environment. In many areas, increased crime and increased methamphetamine drug trafficking has placed severe pressure on rural law enforcement capabilities. So if we are going to call upon them to do more, to leave their families each day, putting their lives in harm's way, then we have to provide them with the resources they need to carry out their duties. As a strong supporter of the criminal justice system, I believe this includes giving them access to the vital training they need. We must do all we can to support our hard-working professionals in rural areas. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan amendment. Finally, I commend all of our law enforcement personnel, not just in our rural areas but in our urban areas as well--all across Georgia, Colorado, and every single State in America--who risk their lives every day for the sake of protecting their citizens. Again, Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for this very commonsense, bipartisan measure that will improve the safety of every single citizen who lives in rural, as well as urban America. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I recently came to the Senate floor to express my views relative to the deliberations this body was undertaking approving and disapproving of the President's way forward in Iraq. I am strongly in favor of this body debating the U.S. policy relative to Iraq and believe all my colleagues are as well. However, as I stated in my earlier speech, it is not appropriate to allow the majority party to completely dictate the terms of that debate, as they have tried to do over the last several weeks. That is why I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid resolution on February 17, along with a vast majority of my Republican colleagues. Mr. President, since that time, a new strategy relative to this debate has come forward. The strategy is essentially an attempt to deauthorize or restrict U.S. military action in Iraq by revoking or altering the Iraq war resolution, which passed this body by a vote of 77 to 23 on October 11, 2002. I don't agree with this tactic. On January 26, the Senate unanimously approved GEN David Petraeus for his fourth star and to be commander of the multinational forces, Iraq. No Senator opposed his nomination. General Petraeus supports President Bush's plan and new strategy in Iraq and has embarked on the mission for which President Bush chose him and for which this body unanimously confirmed him. Once again, now we are being asked to disapprove and deauthorize the very mission we have unanimously confirmed him to execute. Hopefully, my colleagues can see the irony, as well as the inconsistency, in the choice they are presenting before this body. As I have said before, we need to give the new strategy in Iraq a chance to work. If General Petraeus comes and says it is not working, then I am prepared to change course. President Bush's current strategy is not guaranteed to work. However, no approach I have seen or heard discussed in the past several months has any greater chance of success than the course we are now taking. Therefore, this strategy deserves a chance. In talking with some of my colleagues, on the Republican side as well as the Democratic side, who recently returned from Iraq, I am very hopeful that based on the comments they have made, per their visual inspection of what is going on in Iraq today, based upon their conversations with General Petraeus, we are seeing some successes, even though they are minimal at this point. But there is now hope and encouragement that this strategy is going to work. If Members of Congress truly don't support our efforts in Iraq and believe we should withdraw troops, they should vote to cut off funds for the war, which is the primary authority Congress has in this area. However, having refused to allow the Senate to vote on protecting funding for our troops serving in harm's way, the Democrats are now proposing another symbolic resolution. This is the fourth resolution that the Senate Democratic leadership has backed to address the troop increase, and the Democrats still insist on avoiding the fundamental issue of whether they will cut off funds for troops serving in Iraq. As the Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial: Democrats don't want to leave their fingerprints on defeat in Iraq by actually voting to bring the troops home. So instead, they're hoping to put restrictions on troop deployments that will make it impossible for the Iraq commander, General David Petraeus, to fulfill his mission. This is essentially an attempt to ensure the policy does not succeed. Logically, the Senate should be giving General Petraeus everything he needs to succeed, both in terms of financial as well as political support. But that is not what the majority party is trying to do. Democrats in the House of Representatives have undertaken a plan that would tie war funding in a supplemental spending bill to strict new standards for resetting, equipping, and training troops. This strategy to choke off resources and the Senate plan to revise the use of force authorization are attempts to make the war in Iraq unwinnable while avoiding political responsibility. As Charles Krauthammer has said: Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable--and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so. There is nothing easy or pretty about war, and this war is no exception. Not a day passes that I don't consider the human cost of our attempt to defeat the terrorists and eradicate extremism in Iraq and replace it with a self-reliant and representative government. The debate, as we move forward, should focus on how we can most quickly and effectively achieve the victory that all of us desire. It is not about political posturing. It is about what Congress can do to support our young men and women in Iraq and help them accomplish this critical mission. Losing the global war on terrorism is not an option. Failure in Iraq would be devastating to our national security, entangling the Middle East in a web of chaos that breeds terror and extremism. The Iraq Study Group and countless expert witnesses have testified that simply leaving Iraq, without stabilizing the country, would be disastrous. As the senior Senator from my State, my support of our mission and our troops includes a responsibility to examine the tactics and question the steps that we take to reach our goal. I will continue to do that in a very deliberate way, but I intend to be constructive in my approach and criticism in order to do everything we can to ensure that our troops and our mission succeed, rather than doing whatever I can to make sure they fail. When this motion to deauthorize or micromanage the war in Iraq comes to the floor of the Senate, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?