[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7571-7572]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the House of Representatives passed an 
emergency war spending bill on Friday that includes tens of billions of 
dollars for projects that have no connection whatsoever to the needs of 
our troops

[[Page 7572]]

in Iraq and Afghanistan, that tells U.S. generals how to do their jobs, 
and which pulls out of thin air a date for evacuating U.S. troops from 
Iraq.
  It was meant to send a message to the Commander in Chief, but its 
only real effect is to delay the delivery of urgent material support to 
our troops. The President has said he will veto any legislation that 
includes a surrender date and which substitutes the judgment of 
politicians in Washington for the judgment of commanders in the field. 
Those who voted for the House spending bill on Friday, therefore, knew 
it had no chance of being approved. It was an empty promise to the 
troops.
  The Constitution gives Members of Congress a concrete way of 
expressing their opposition to a war, and that is to vote against 
funding it. But House Democrats are trying to have it both ways: They 
call their bill a statement against the very war it continues to fund, 
a promise of support for the troops that has no chance of being signed.
  Who loses out in this strange calculus? American soldiers and marines 
deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq and their worried families here at 
home are the losers.
  The Secretary of Defense said as much last week. He said delaying the 
approval of funds would slow the training of units already headed into 
Iraq and reduce the funds available for repairs to buildings and 
equipment. He said it would force the Army to consider cutting funds 
for renovations to barracks and cut off repairs to equipment that is 
needed to support troop deployment training.
  The House brushed these concerns aside to express a point of view. 
But troops who have been sent into battle with assurances of support 
got another message: Don't count on it from us.
  Some have said the Senate version of the war spending bill is more 
palatable. They say this because its date for withdrawal is only a 
goal. They think that by retaining this provision, they will eventually 
force Republicans to accept the notion that battlefield commanders 
should be tied to arbitrary timelines. Believe me, they are wrong.
  The week before last, we prevented legislation that would have told 
our enemies the date on which we will give up. A majority in the Senate 
showed it won't approve a bill that shares our battle plan with the 
enemy or which tells soldiers and commanders how to do their jobs.
  We won't let timelines be used as the toll booth for getting aid to 
the troops, and we need to send the President a bill that doesn't 
include them so he can sign it without delay. I urge my colleagues to 
put an end to this unfortunate and misguided effort to set an arbitrary 
date upon which to withdraw from Iraq and to strip language from this 
emergency spending bill that only guarantees our troops will have to 
wait for the help they need and the support they deserve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

                          ____________________