Mr. Bunning: Madam President, I was precluded from speaking prior to the vote taken on the Iraq supplemental. I am going to speak for about 15 minutes at this time and voice my strong opposition, as Senator Shelby, to the conference report that just passed this body. This bill is a highly irresponsible bill showing both a disregard for taxpayer money and our American service people. It is probably the most dangerous bill I have seen in over 20 years of service in the Congress of the United States.
I don't say that lightly. Last month I came to the floor to voice my opposition to the emergency supplemental spending bill. I wanted a clean bill that the President could sign into law. Instead, today we passed a bill that ties troop funding to arbitrary withdrawal deadlines and billions and billions of dollars in unrelated spending.
Now, 3 weeks later, we find ourselves with essentially the same piece of legislation. It is an insult to the men and women who serve in our armed services. Funding our troops is not a political game. We are a nation at war. There are unexpected costs and needs that must be continued to promote our freedoms and troops at home and help them succeed in Iraq. That is why we have emergency supplemental legislation. It is used to meet the immediate needs of the men and women in the Armed Forces on our frontlines.
The extra spending goes beyond emergency needs and, instead, adds additional nondefense funds that are not necessary right now. There is a lot of fat in this bill that the Senate should consider under the regular appropriations process. That is what appropriations bills are all about. The hurricanes of 2005 were truly devastating. I have supported the Government's rebuilding efforts in the region. But the bill before us today includes billions of dollars in unrequested and unnecessary funding for the Corps of Engineers. These provisions are inappropriate for a wartime supplemental.
Another area of extra spending relates to agriculture. I have been a strong supporter of America's farmers, but the programs in this bill do not belong in a supplemental wartime bill. I cannot justify $20 million for dairy farmers and $60 million for salmon fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. This bill is about our troops, not our farmers. There are even more glaring examples in this conference report: $18 million for drought assistance in the upper Midwest; $25 million for NASA facilities in the gulf region; $10 million for historic preservation funds. This bill doubles the 20 million I opposed for asbestos abatement at the Capitol powerplant. The list goes on.
I am ashamed that this Congress believes it can solve its own budgetary problems on the backs of our fighting men and women.
Finally, instead of helping our troops, this supplemental bill only ends up offending them. We ought to be sending a clear message of support for our men and women in harm's way. It should be clear that this Congress and this country will make sure that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the necessary supplies and resources to carry out their missions. Unfortunately, this legislation only serves to undermine our military missions. It pulls the rug right out from under our troops, just as we are at a point of seeing some signs of increased security in Baghdad.
To me, this bill is a strategy for defeat. It sends a detrimental message to our troops and only serves to embolden our enemies. It tells the terrorists: Mark your calendars with our date for withdrawal from Iraq; sit and wait for us to get out.
Like many of my colleagues, I had the opportunity to hear firsthand from my good friend, David Petraeus, yesterday about the current situation in Iraq. I am sorry it was a very highly classified briefing or I would share those things with the Senate. But I want to give the mood of his report. He was very frank in his report. The situation in Iraq is not any closer to being resolved than it was 2 months ago when his mission started. The country still suffers from violent sectarian strife and is at war with a cluster of enemies, including primarily al- Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Sunni insurgents, and Shia radicals. The other side of the aisle has already said the war is lost. But we haven't even given the President's plan a chance to work. We still have a long way to go in Iraq, but sectarian killings have dropped dramatically since January. There is greater cooperation between the U.S. forces and the Iraqi Army, and we are beginning to see the Iraqi people work toward complete sovereignty.
We should not dictate arbitrary guidelines for the future. The Iraqi Government is still in a critical development stage. It must be given the time and room to grow with our guidance. The same Senators and Congressmen calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or setting an arbitrary withdrawal date do not discuss the ramifications of such an action. It may be because they know that immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous to the Middle East and threaten international stability and our national defense. Withdrawal is not a viable option. If we leave Iraq prematurely, we lose. Peace-loving people in Iraq lose, and Islamic radicals and al-Qaida win. That is the situation we are in today. We need to be honest about it as we proceed forward.
I have voted against past withdrawal language and voted against it again today. Setting a withdrawal deadline will have grave consequences for the United States. It will put our national security at risk. After the President vetoes this bill--and we sustain his veto--we need to refocus our attention and our productive manner on how to best help our commanders on the ground to achieve success in Iraq. No arbitrary timetable, no billions of dollars in unrelated pork--we need a clean bill that funds our men and women in uniform and gives them a chance for success.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New York.
