[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 50 (Tuesday, May 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3853-S3854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, our country desperately needs a new 
vision for strengthening our national security, and I believe it starts 
by redeploying our U.S. forces from Iraq and refocusing our attention 
on the global terrorist threats that face us. I filed an amendment that 
requires the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 
2006. Unfortunately, the Senate will not be given the opportunity to 
vote on this amendment if we invoke cloture on the emergency 
supplemental bill we will be considering shortly.
  I am afraid this body has failed time and time again to debate the 
direction of our country's policy in Iraq. Three years ago, the 
President landed on an aircraft carrier and, as we all remember, 
declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq. Today, with thousands of 
lives lost and billions of dollars spent, we are still no closer to a 
policy that lifts the burden from our troops and taxpayers and actually 
makes our country safer from the terrorist networks that seek to hurt 
us.
  By failing to discuss alternatives to the administration's failed 
Iraq policy, we have let down this institution and our constituents. We 
simply cannot continue to avoid asking the tough questions about Iraq. 
We should not be appropriating billions of dollars for Iraq without 
debating and demanding a strategy to complete our military mission 
there, not when the lives of our soldiers and the safety of our country 
are at risk.
  Our military has performed heroically in Iraq, but the continued and 
indefinite presence of large U.S. forces there significantly weakens 
our ability to fight the global terrorism networks that threaten us 
today.
  That is why I filed an amendment requiring the Pentagon to draw up a 
flexible time line for redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end 
of this year. The President has repeatedly failed to spell out for the 
American people when we can expect our troops to redeploy from Iraq. He 
has refused to provide a vision for ending our military mission in 
Iraq, and as a result a growing majority of Americans have lost 
confidence in our purpose, our direction, and our presence in Iraq.
  Last August, I proposed a target date for withdrawal when I suggested 
U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of 2006. This amendment in part 
reflects the fact that the administration has made no progress--no 
progress whatsoever--in developing a clear vision for ending our 
military mission, redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq, and refocusing on 
the real national security threats that face our country.
  My amendment spells out what an increasing number of military 
intelligence and diplomatic officials have been saying for a very long 
time: that a massive and seemingly indefinite U.S. presence in Iraq is 
destabilizing and potentially damaging to Iraqi efforts to rebuild 
their government and their country. Our presence in some ways is 
generating instability in Iraq, and the less we make it clear that our 
intent is to leave and to leave now, our presence can become more 
harmful than it is helpful.
  More important, though, is the fact that our current Iraq policy is 
making the United States weaker, not stronger. We need to redeploy U.S. 
forces from Iraq because, as a result of our current costly and 
burdensome presence in Iraq, we are unable to direct our resources 
worldwide to defeat the wide and growing network of terrorist 
organizations that seek to harm Americans and America. This 
administration has compounded its misguided decision to wage war in 
Iraq by refusing to recognize the consequences of its actions, the 
tremendous cost to our brave troops and their loved ones, the drain on 
our financial resources, and the burden on our Nation's national 
security sources and infrastructure, which are unable to focus on new 
and emerging threats to our country.

  I don't have to point very far to show how imbalanced and burdensome 
are our policies in Iraq. While we have spent, according to the 
Congressional Research Service, upwards of $6 billion per week during 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and $1.3 billion per week during Operation 
Enduring Freedom, we are spending a little more than $2 million--$2 
million--annually--not weekly, annually--in Somalia, a known haven for 
terrorists and criminals and a true threat to our national security. 
This supplemental appropriation, if passed, will increase the cost of 
this war to $320 billion, and rising.
  This is simply unsustainable, and because the President has failed to 
provide us with any semblance of a vision for when our troops will be 
redeployed, we can expect more of the same in years to come; that is, 
unless the Congress finally requires the administration to develop an 
Iraq strategy that includes a flexible time line for redeploying our 
troops by the end of 2006. My amendment recognizes the need to maintain 
a minimal level of U.S. forces in Iraq beyond 2006. Those forces will 
be needed for engaging directly and targeting counterterrorism 
activities, training Iraq in security forces, and protecting essential 
U.S. infrastructure and personnel.
  It is time for Members of Congress to stand up to an administration 
that continues to lead us astray on what has become an extremely costly 
and mistaken war. We need to hold this administration accountable for 
its neglect of urgent national security priorities in favor of staying 
a flawed policy course in Iraq. We need to tell the administration that 
it can't continue to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way 
without a clear and convincing strategy for success.
  Some have suggested that we should tie our military presence in Iraq 
to whether Iraqis are able to form a unity government. While I share 
their frustration with the status quo, I think the decisions about 
troop presence should be based on what is best for our country's 
national security. Making decisions about our troop levels contingent 
on a political solution in Iraq doesn't make sense. Our troops should 
not be held hostage to the failure to bring about a political solution 
in Iraq.
  So here is the bottom line: We need to refocus on fighting and 
defeating the terrorist network that attacked this country on September 
11, 2001, and that means placing our Iraq policy in the context of a 
global effort rather than letting it dominate our security strategy and 
drain vital security resources for an unlimited amount of time. The 
President's Iraq-centric policies are preventing us from effectively 
engaging serious threats around the world, including Iran, global 
terrorist networks, and other emerging threats. We must change course 
in Iraq, and we must change course now.
  It is in this spirit that I filed this amendment to this supplemental 
spending bill. If I am not allowed a vote on my amendment to the 
supplemental, I can assure my colleagues that I will be looking for the 
next opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor for debate and a 
vote.

[[Page S3854]]

  My colleagues are, of course, entitled to disagree with my approach. 
I welcome their suggestions and their advice. But what I really want is 
for the Senate to live up to its responsibility and engage in a serious 
debate about the topic that is on the mind of every American: how to 
put our Iraq policy right and our national security policy right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the minority 
side?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-two minutes.

                          ____________________