Mark Udall: “when the House considered this measure earlier this week, I voted for it even though I was far from enthusiastic about…”

“when the House considered this measure earlier this week, I voted for it even though I was far from enthusiastic about doing so. Now that it is before us again--because the Senate changed it--I am even less enthusiastic about it, but I have reluctantly concluded that bad as it is, it needs to be passed. And so I will vote for it again. Earlier, I said that one of its worst shortcomings, ironically, was that it was too long--rolling into one massive measure provisions from no fewer than 11 regular appropriations bills that the House passed earlier this year. And now it is even longer, because the Senate has added an additional $39 billion, all for military activities in Iraq. There is no mystery about why that happened. It happened for two reasons. The first reason is that President Bush has insisted that he will not sign the bill unless these funds were added--just as he has insisted he will veto it if it provided more funding than he has requested for domestic purposes. The second reason is that our Republican colleagues, both here and in the Senate, have made clear they will support any such veto. And the result of the president's stubborn insistence and our Republican colleagues stubborn loyalty is that of the nearly $190 billion the president requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, this bill includes $39 billion for Iraq, to be available without conditions or significant restrictions.”