Candidate Statements on the War Funding Bill

Biden, Hagel, McCain, Hunter, and Tancredo voted for the bill. Kerry, Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Paul voted against it. Sam Brownback was not present. (Senate vote, House Vote)

Barack Obama:

“This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one. And I am demanding a new one.”

“We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else’s civil war. We need a plan to compel the Iraqi people to reach a political accommodation and to take responsibility for their own future. It’s time to change course.”

“I opposed this war in 2002 precisely because I feared it would lead us to the open-ended occupation in which we find ourselves today.”

“This President has led us down a disastrous path and has arrogantly refused to acknowledge the grim reality of this war, which has cost us so dearly in lives and treasure.”

“After he vetoed a plan that would have funded the troops and begun to bring them home, this bill represents more of his stubborn refusal to address his failed policy.”

“We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path.”

“With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

Bill Richardson:

“The best way to support our troops is to get them out of Iraq, and this bill will not move us any closer to that. The Democratic Congress is missing an opportunity. They should repeal the original resolution that gave the President the authority to take action against Iraq and replace it with one that requires the President to take all the troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Congress has the authority to do that under Article One of the Constitution and under the War Powers Act and the President cannot veto it. Congress should not pass any appropriations beyond the date of de-authorization. By doing it that way, Congress would both fully fund our troops and get them out of Iraq as soon as possible.”

Chris Dodd:

“I’m disappointed that there is no firm deadline in this version of the bill, because I believe that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to an end. I will fight for, and hope that the bill that emerges from conference has, a firm deadline to redeploy our troops.”

Dennis Kucinich:

“Just as the Democrats could have prevented the invasion of Iraq in 2003, when Senators Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd supported it,” Kucinich said, “and just as the Democrats could have ended the occupation of Iraq at any point by ending the funding, while Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd have voted over and over again to fund it, so too the Democratic leadership could have ended the occupation this week by not bringing any funding bills up for votes.”

“The Democratic Party has to choose,” Kucinich said, “between standing for peace or continuing to support war and occupation, between heeding the demand of the voters last November or caving in to the demands of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t facilitate the passage of another bill to fund the war and at the same time claim that we want the war to end. The public sees through such hypocritical maneuvering.”

“It’s instructive,” Kucinich added, “that the leadership removed from the Supplemental a requirement that the president gain Congress’s consent before launching an additional aggressive war against Iran. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards have all said that with regard to Iran all options are on the table, a thinly veiled euphemism for a unilateral preemptive military attack.”

“If Senators Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd want to end the occupation of Iraq,” Kucinich noted, “they can vote against any more funding, and they can filibuster bills that provide it. I urge every Senator to take that step.”

Hillary Clinton:

“Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress’s new strategy and so Congress must reject the President’s failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.

“While I am deeply disappointed that the supplemental does not provide for a new course in Iraq, I want to recognize the many worthy parts of this bill: funding to help those sickened in the aftermath of 9/11, additional relief for Katrina and Rita victims, homeland security funds for high-threat cities like New York City, resources to protect parts of New York affected by recent flooding, $650 million for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the first federal minimum wage increase in ten years. I support these measures but cannot support this Emergency Supplemental which will not change our course in Iraq.”

Joe Biden:

“Earlier this month, Congress sent the President an emergency spending bill for Iraq. It provided every dollar our troops need and the President requested - and then some. It also provided the American people a plan to bring this war to a responsible end. In vetoing the bill, the President denied our troops the funding they need, and the American people the plan they want.

“The bill we are voting on denies the American people a plan for a responsible way out of Iraq. I also disagree with the approach in this bill - cutting off economic aid if benchmarks aren’t met would be self-defeating. Much of our aid is being used to build local and provincial governments, consistent with the federalism-based political solution I advocate.

“But the practical reality is that, for now, those of us who want to change course in Iraq don’t have the votes to override the President’s veto. And I believe that as long as we have troops on the frontlines, we must give them the equipment and protection they need. So I will vote for the supplemental.

“But we also must - and we will - bring this war to a responsible end. Day after day, vote after vote, I will work to keep the pressure on Republicans to stop reflexively backing the President and start supporting a responsible path out of Iraq.”

John Edwards:

“Washington failed America today when Congress surrendered to the president’s demand for another blank check that prolongs the war in Iraq. It is time for this war to end.

“Congress should immediately use its funding power to cap troop levels in Iraq at 100,000, stop the ongoing surge, and force an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year.

“The American people’s call for a new course in Iraq was not answered today, but Congress still has the power to end this war. Our security and democracy alike demand it.”

John McCain Statement One:

“I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda.”

John McCain Statement Two:

“Mr. President, our servicemen and women on the front lines in the War on Terror have been waiting too long for the funding this bill provides. Our soldiers, airmen, and marines need this appropriation to carry out their vital work, and we should have provided it months ago. The Congress, which authorized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has an obligation to give our troops everything they need to prevail in their missions. As such, I will vote for its passage. But I do so with deep reservations. The legislation we are considering now is the wrong way to fund this war, and it fails the most basic tests imposed on us as stewards of taxpayer dollars.

“This emergency supplemental appropriations bill contains $120 billion in funding, approximately $17 billion above the President’s request. It is filled with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with funding the troops. In a time of war, with large federal budget deficits, we should be constraining our federal expenditures. Sadly, we have chosen, once again, to do the opposite, and loaded this bill with billions of dollars in spending we don’t need, spending that was not requested, spending that will only add to the already excessive size of government.

“The President submitted his supplemental funding request on February 5th – nearly 4 months ago. The Senate finally passed a very flawed version of a bill on March 29th – a bill that everyone knew was nothing more than a political stunt, one that was dead before arrival to the President. Instead of putting our country first and providing the troops with full funding as expeditiously as possible, we let partisan politics rule the day. While some may believe that they scored political points by forcing meaningless procedural votes, I would ask them to reflect for a moment. What gain inheres in playing partisan politics with the lives of our honorable warriors and their families? How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts, Mr. President. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us - those who fight and risk all on our behalf - by playing politics with their service.

“So now, nearly four months after the supplemental funding request was submitted, here we are, with money literally running out to fund this war. We are about to pass a bill that while better than the last version, still contains billions of dollars that have nothing to do with the War on Terror. We can do better than this. The American taxpayers deserve and expect more.

“As my colleagues know, I’ve been meeting with citizens across the country, and let me assure you, they are not happy with the workings of Congress. There is a reason that the poll results on Congress’s favorability rating are at such lows–the latest at 31 percent. It is because of partisan politics having a greater priority in Washington than doing the people’s business. It is because we are not making the tough choices to halt deficit spending and fix the out of control entitlement programs. It is because we seem to care more about our own reelections than about reforming government. This is not the way the American public wants their elected officials to behave. What will it take for that to sink in?

“Let me mention some of the un-requested and un-authorized items contained in this bill:

· $110 million in aid to the shrimp and fisheries industries;

· $11 million for flood control projects in New York and New Jersey;

· $37 million to modernize the Farm Service Agency’s computer system;

· $13 million for the Save America’s Treasures program; and,

· $3 billion in agriculture disaster assistance, including $22 million to support the Department of Agriculture in implementing programs to provide this un-requested and unauthorized funding.

“Mr. President, there are also several items in this bill that seek to legislate on an appropriations bill rather than allowing such items to move through the regular legislative process. Examples include language that:

· Raises the minimum wage;

· Restricts the Department of Transportation from implementing the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) provisions expanding cross-border trade between Mexico and the United States with the introduction of a pilot program that would allow a select group of Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries into our country beyond the 25 miles that current law permits;

· Extends several tax credits, while setting forth new Internal Revenue Service definitions and exempting some programs from taxation; and,

· Amends the Food Security Act to make adjustments to the Department of Agriculture’s land and soil conservation program.

“Another provision that seeks to legislate on this appropriations bill is a provision that would end-run the Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The 2005 BRAC commission decided to close the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, and the Department of Navy was in the process of closing the base in accordance with the law. This bill, however, would transfer the land and facilities to the Air Force – even though the Secretary of the Air Force stated on April 12, 2007 that there is not a military need for the land it will be forced to receive. This provision was not requested by the Administration, is not an emergency, and is not a responsible way to legislate. It was not reviewed or debated in any committee, and the committee of jurisdiction has had no say in the matter. Yet, the American people will now be forced to continue to pay for the maintenance of this unwanted land when the Air Force receives it.

“Despite these unacceptable earmarks and legislative language, I am pleased that this bill does not contain a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions there. Such a mandate would have had grave consequences for the future of Iraq and the security of Americans. The President was right to veto the first iteration of this legislation.

“I do have concerns, however, with the way in which this measure conditions aid to the Iraqi government by requiring the government to meet benchmarks. Although I support benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and I believe that we should encourage the Iraqi government to move ahead as rapidly as possible on a number of fronts, some of the benchmarks contained in this bill are beyond the control of the Iraqi leadership. One of the benchmarks, for example, mandates that there will be no safe haven for “any outlaws.” This should of course be an aspiration, but if terrorists or insurgents hang on and hole up in Baghdad, should this constitute a reason why the United States withholds economic aid to the government? Similarly, another benchmark requires the Iraqi government to reduce the level of sectarian violence. But if sectarian violence does not decline as rapidly as we would like, does this suggest that the answer is to cut off reconstruction aid? It’s not at all clear to me that it does.

“I believe that, instead of legislating a list of benchmarks that must be met by the Iraqis, and imposing statutory penalties for non-performance, it would be preferable for the administration to reach agreement on a series of benchmarks with the Iraqi government, a timeline for implementation, and consequences attached to each. Such an approach would make clear to the Iraqis that they must make progress, but would do so in a way that is specific, flexible, and realistic.

“Mr. President, if this bill is to have benchmarks at all, it should be a benchmark that Congress may not approve any earmark, no matter how valid the cause, without an authorization, an Administration request or inclusion in the budget. The national debt grows $75 million dollars an hour and $1.3 billion dollars a day. Congress should benchmark its spending sprees on zero debt, but it won’t. This body would rather set benchmarks for others around the world than take responsibility for its own actions. For these reasons, this bill is flawed and irresponsible, but I will vote for it nonetheless in order to support our brave men and women fighting for freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mitt Romney:

“At a time when the men and women of our military fighting terrorism around the globe needed them most, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cast a vote that singularly defines their lack of leadership and serves as a glaring example of an unrealistic and inexperienced worldview on national security that is regrettably shared by too many of their fellow Capitol Hill Democrats.

“Voting against our troops during a time of war shows the American people that the leaders of the Democrat Party will abandon principle in favor of political positioning.

“Their votes render them undependable in the eyes of the men and women of the United States military and the American people.”