[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 150 (Thursday, October 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12701-S12702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Republicans and Democrats have been 
debating all year long about the troops. This has not been a debate 
about who wants to bring them home. Frankly, all of us want to bring 
them home. It has been a debate about whom do you trust to decide when 
these troops come home, about who has the authority and judgment to 
make decisions about how to protect our national security interests in 
the Persian Gulf. Republicans think it should be the Commander in Chief 
in consultation with his commanders on the ground. We don't think our 
foreign policy should be drafted by MoveOn.org or CODEPINK.
  However, on one thing we have almost all agreed: When we have forces 
in the field, we ought to fund them. Once they are over there, you do 
not leave them guessing about whether they are going to eat or be 
clothed or have the equipment they need to do their jobs, and you don't 
leave their replacement units wondering whether they will be trained or 
equipped.
  In the heat of the first Iraq debate, we passed by a strong 
bipartisan vote of 82 to 16 the Gregg resolution expressing the sense 
of Congress that no funds should be cut off or even reduced for troops 
in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their 
ability to complete their mission. We passed, by an overwhelming 96-to-
2 vote, the Murray resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that 
no action should be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces 
of the United States or impact their ability to complete their 
missions. And we repeatedly rejected the Feingold amendment as recently 
as yesterday, once again, that would cut off funds for the troops after 
a date certain next June regardless of whether they have completed 
their mission.
  Under the Feingold amendment, which forbids U.S. troops from fighting 
anyone but al-Qaida and its affiliates, we would have to deploy a 
brigade of lawyers to interview the enemy, and we would lose the 
ability to gather the kind of intelligence from Iraqis themselves--
intelligence that has been an invaluable component of the Petraeus plan 
so far. The Iraqi people are talking to us now because they feel safer 
having U.S. troops around. Pulling those troops out of the 
neighborhoods and replacing them with snipers in helicopters would cut 
us off from the very people who are helping us find the targets in the 
first place.
  This Senate has argued for months about Iraq, but on this one point 
almost all of us have agreed again and again and again: You don't cut 
funds to troops who are already in the field. Yet now it seems even 
that may be about to change.
  All last year, the Democrats complained that the President was hiding 
his spending requests for the war by leaving them out of the Defense 
spending bill and putting them into a supplemental instead. So earlier 
this year, he responded to those criticisms in good faith by making his 
request in concert with the DOD appropriations bill. He said we would 
need about $150 billion for 2008.
  The majority has been sitting on this request for 8 months, and now 
they have made a conscious decision to leave it out of the Defense 
spending bill altogether. Some of them are arguing that the Defense 
Department has the legal authority to sustain the war on its own. That 
is right, they could do that, but what the Defense Department cannot do 
is plan ahead without a future spending commitment from this Congress. 
They cannot plan for training, equipment, feeding, or protecting our 
troops until they know the money will be there beyond the immediate 
future, and they cannot plan to be ready for any other operations that 
might arise outside of the current conflicts. This is no way to run a 
Defense Department, it is no way to treat the troops, and it is 
entirely inconsistent with the expressions of support for the troops 
that we registered with the Gregg and Murray resolutions and which we 
reaffirmed repeatedly, including yesterday, by rejecting the Feingold 
amendment.

  All summer, America and its allies waited for GEN David Petraeus to 
come to the Hill and tell us about the prospects in Iraq. We were 
encouraged when he told us the military objectives of his strategy were 
in large measure being met. We were proud when he told us that in the 
face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat, coalition and Iraqi 
security forces had achieved real progress toward achieving their 
goals, in large part because they dealt what he described as a 
``significant blow''--a significant blow--to al-Qaida.
  General Petraeus recommended that as a result of these early 
successes, we can begin to draw down our troops beginning this year. 
That drawdown has already begun. Last month, the Marine Expeditionary 
Unit that was deployed as part of the surge left Iraq after a job well 
done. A combat brigade team will leave in mid-December, with four 
others and two surge marine battalions to follow in the first half of 
next year. This was General Petraeus's cautious but expert plan for 
building on the successes we have made in Iraq. The President accepted 
that plan, and a majority of Americans, including a majority of 
Democrats, if we are to believe the polls, think it is a good idea.
  We have a new strategy in Iraq, according to the general in charge. 
It is working, and we owe it to the men and women in the field, first 
of all, to keep a commitment we have already made to fund them while 
they are carrying out that strategy. We cannot, we must not close this 
session without providing the funding these troops need.
  We also owe it to them to bring them home in a way that reflects the 
best judgment of their commanders. General Petraeus gave us a rare and 
valuable glimpse into the minds of our soldiers and marines when he 
testified on Capitol Hill last month. General Petraeus said:

       None of us want to stay in Iraq forever. We all want to 
     come home. We all have days of frustration and all the rest 
     of that. But what we want to do is come home the right way, 
     having added to the heritage of our services,

[[Page S12702]]

     accomplished the mission that our country has laid out for 
     us.

  That is what General Petraeus had to say. Then he gave us an idea of 
the caliber of the men and women who are serving our country in Iraq. 
Talking more about the commitment they have to their task, here is what 
General Petraeus said:

       I think that that's a very important factor in what our 
     soldiers are doing, in addition to the fact that, frankly, 
     they also just respect the individuals with whom they are 
     carrying out this important mission, the men and women on 
     their right and left who share very important values, among 
     them selfless service and devotion to duty. And that, indeed, 
     is a huge factor in why many of us continue to serve and to 
     stay in uniform, because the privilege of serving with such 
     individuals is truly enormous.

  The Defense Department is currently revising its spending requests 
for the current fiscal year, but that is no reason to deny the funds it 
already said it needs to get through the spring. The fact that we are 
waiting on a request for more is not an excuse to deliver nothing.
  The men and women who are serving our country deserve better. Let's 
not pass up the chance to acknowledge their ``selfless service and 
devotion to duty'' by giving them exactly what they need--before we 
conclude this session of Congress.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________