[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 8323]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 2 months ago, GEN David Petraeus came 
to Capitol Hill to explain the situation in Baghdad and to outline his 
plan for improving it. And then we ratified that plan. A Democratic-
controlled Senate sent General Petraeus to Iraq--without dissent.
  There were no illusions about what the mission would involve: We 
would demand greater cooperation from the Iraqi Government, and they 
would get greater security in return. If they gave us room to help 
secure the capital city, they would have room to build a civil society.
  Now that mission is underway. Security is improving and political 
reforms have followed.
  We were told there would be no political reforms in Iraq without 
basic security first. But if we could secure the capital, then we could 
expect to see reforms. That is what General Petraeus told us. That is 
the story he told us we could hope to see unfold, and if it did, we 
would have reason to hope for success, we would have a chance to win 
this.
  Right now we have that chance. The question is, will we fan this 
spark of hope or will we smother it?
  The Democratic leadership has a different view. They do not seem to 
think situations can change. They have made no allowance for 
improvements in Iraq. They call for a change in course, but the only 
change in course they seem to approve of is retreat.
  The bill they sent the President today says one of two things: It 
says they are either determined to lose this war or they are convinced 
it is already lost. There is no other way to look at it.
  Nothing good can come from this bill. It all but guarantees a delay 
in the delivery of supplies and equipment to the troops on the ground. 
It is loaded with pork that has no relation to our efforts in Iraq or 
Afghanistan. And it includes a deadline for evacuation that amounts to 
sending a ``save the date'' card to al-Qaida--a date that is not tied 
to circumstances on the ground, a date that is completely arbitrary--
pulled out of thin air--a date the terrorists have already marked on 
their calendars.
  This bill is the document of our defeat. That is why the President 
has said for weeks he would not sign it. Because it has no chance of 
becoming law, because the Democrats knew it never had a chance of 
becoming law, it is nothing more than a political statement--a 
political statement that says the Democrats have traded in the 
possibility of military victory for the promise of political victory 
here at home.
  They have said as much. Earlier this week, one of the Democratic 
leaders said this about the emergency supplemental bill. He said:

       It's not one battle. It's a long-term campaign.

  So what is the aim of this long-term campaign? To pressure the 
President to retreat. The Democratic leadership is telling the 
President to retreat through a spending bill that is meant to deliver 
emergency equipment and supplies to our troops.
  But I ask you: If the war is already lost, if it is already time to 
declare defeat, then why wait another year to do it? Why not simply 
vote against funding now? Would anyone disagree that it is wrong to ask 
American soldiers to stick it out for another year if you think the 
battle is already over? If Democrats want to end this war, they should 
vote against funding it. That would clearly end the war. But apparently 
that is not what is going to happen. They will wait another year. They 
will supply and equip our soldiers to fight a war they think we have 
already lost, and they will use the spending bill that funds that extra 
year of fighting as a vehicle for pork.
  There is more than $20 billion of spending in this bill that has 
nothing whatsoever to do with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, and most 
of it simply should not be there.
  The senior Senator from Nevada has said repeatedly that this spending 
bill is serious.
  How serious is $2.5 million for tours of the Capitol? Is $3 million 
for sugarcane serious? Is $22.8 million for geothermal research or $13 
million for ewe replacement and retention? Is all of that serious?
  This bill was intended to fund and equip American men and women who 
have left their families to risk their lives overseas. But in some 
ways, it has become a bit of a joke. It has ballooned into a gravy 
train for Members. It absurdly broadcasts to our enemies a date certain 
for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. And it is designed to draw 
a veto, risking that the very supplies it means to deliver would not 
even get there in time.
  The American people are watching this charade. They have reason to be 
confused. They even have reasons to be angry.
  I am pleased my colleagues voted against this bill to show it is 
right for the President to veto it and to show we will proudly sustain 
that veto. Then we can get about our real mission to fund the troops. 
Let's hope the President gets this bill as quickly as possible, so he 
can do with it what it deserves. No bill has deserved the veto pen more 
than this one.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________