[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 31, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1398-S1400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have listened intently over the past 
few weeks as the President, members of his Cabinet, and Members of this 
Chamber have discussed Iraq, the war on terror, and ways to strengthen 
our national security.
  For years, now, I have opposed this administration's policies in Iraq 
as a diversion from the fight against terrorism. But I have never been 
so sure of the fact that this administration misunderstands the nature 
of the threats that face our country. I am also surer than ever--and it 
gives me no pleasure to say this--that this President is incapable of 
developing and executing a national security strategy that will make 
our country safer.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, because of our disproportionate focus 
on Iraq, we are not using enough of our military and intelligence 
capabilities for defeating al-Qaida and other terrorist networks around 
the world, nor are we focusing sufficient attention on challenges we 
face with countries such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, or even China.
  While we have been distracted in Iraq, terrorist networks have 
developed new capabilities and found new sources of support throughout 
the world. We have seen terrorist attacks in India, Morocco, Turkey, 
Afghanistan, Indonesia, Spain, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The 
administration has failed to adequately address the terrorist safe 
haven that has existed for years in Somalia or the recent instability 
that has threatened to destabilize the region. And resurgent Taliban 
forces are contributing to growing levels of instability in 
Afghanistan.
  Meanwhile, the U.S. presence in Iraq is being used as a recruiting 
tool for terrorist organizations from around the world. We heard the 
testimony of Dr. Paul Pillar, former lead CIA analyst for the Middle-
East, a few weeks ago in front of the Foreign Relations Committee. He 
said, and I quote:

       The effects of the war in Iraq on international terrorism 
     were aptly summarized in the National Intelligence Estimate 
     on international terrorism that was partially declassified 
     last fall. In the words of the estimators, the war in Iraq 
     has become a ``cause celebre'' for jihadists, is ``shaping a 
     new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives,'' is one 
     of the major factors fueling the spread of the global 
     jihadist movement, and is being exploited by Al-Qa'ida ``to 
     attract new recruits and donors.'' I concur with those 
     judgments, as I believe would almost any other serious 
     student of international terrorism. [January 10th, 2007]

  Retired senior military officers have also weighed in against the 
President's handling of this war. Retired commander of Central Command, 
General Hoar, testified in front of the Foreign Relations Committee 
last week. This is what the general said:

       Sadly, the new strategy, a deeply flawed solution to our 
     current situation, reflects the continuing and chronic 
     inability of the administration to get it right. The 
     courageous men and women of our Armed Forces have been 
     superb. They have met all the challenges of this difficult 
     war. Unfortunately, they have not been well served by the 
     civilian leadership. [January 18th, 2007]

  If we escalate our involvement in Iraq or continue the President's 
course, that means keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in 
Iraq indefinitely. It means continuing to ask our brave servicemembers 
to somehow provide a military solution to a political problem, one that 
will require the will of the Iraqi people to resolve.
  Escalating our involvement in Iraq also means that our military's 
readiness levels will continue to deteriorate.

[[Page S1399]]

It means that a disproportionate level of our military resources will 
continue to be focused on Iraq while terrorist networks strengthen 
their efforts worldwide. The fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida in 
Afghanistan, too, will continue to suffer, as it has since we invaded 
Iraq. If we escalate our involvement in Iraq, we won't be able to 
finish the job in Afghanistan.
  Finally, the safety of our country would be uncertain, at best. 
Terrorist organizations and insurgencies around the world will continue 
to use our presence in Iraq as a rallying cry and recruiting slogan. 
Terrorist networks will continue to increase their sophistication and 
reach as our military capabilities are strained in Iraq.
  These are only some of the costs of this ongoing war in Iraq. I have 
not addressed the most fundamental cost of this war the loss of the 
lives of our Nation's finest men and women, and the grief and suffering 
that accompanies their sacrifice by their families. We have lost 3,075 
men and women in uniform, and that number continues to rise.
  These losses, and the damaging consequences to our national security, 
are not justified, in my mind, because the war in Iraq was, and 
remains, a war of choice. Some in this body, even those who have 
questioned the initial rationale for the war, suggest that we have no 
choice but to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Some here in this Chamber 
suggest that there is no choice than to continue to give the President 
deference, even when the result is damaging to our national security. 
Some argue it isn't the role of Congress to even debate bringing an end 
to this war.
  That argument is mistaken. Congress has a choice, and a 
responsibility, to determine whether we continue to allow this 
President to devote so much of our resources to Iraq or whether we 
listen to the American public and put an end to this war, begin 
repairing our military, and devote our resources to waging a global 
campaign against al-Qaida and its allies. We cannot do both. The 
Constitution gives Congress the explicit power ``[to] declare War,'' 
``[t]o raise and support Armies,'' ``[t]o provide and maintain a 
Navy,'' and ``[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the 
land and naval Forces.'' In addition, under article I, ``No Money shall 
be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made 
by Law.'' These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United 
States. Yet to hear some in the administration talk, it is as if these 
provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers 
are a clear and direct statement from the Founders of our Republic that 
Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a 
war.
  Our Founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the 
power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of 
government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got 
the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, ``Those who are to 
conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, 
whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.''
  The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, 
first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our 
brave troops in Iraq for nearly 4 years, and now by proceeding despite 
the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 
more American troops into harm's way.
  If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by 
ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the 
role assigned it by the Founding Fathers defining the nature of our 
military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose 
policies are weakening our Nation.
  There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is 
needed. Despite the results of the election and 2 months of study and 
supposed consultation--during which experts and Members of Congress 
from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy--the 
President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would 
persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: 
``Frankly, that's not their responsibility.''
  Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the nonbinding 
resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be 
considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating 
the war. He replied: ``It's not going to stop us.''
  In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the 
President. It is Congress's responsibility to challenge an 
administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the 
country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about 
the administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying 
``your policy is mistaken.'' And we can't stand idly by and tell 
ourselves that it is the President's job to fix the mess he made. It is 
our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our 
responsibilities.
  I have just introduced legislation, cosponsored by Senator Boxer, 
which will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. 
forces in Iraq 6 months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a 
specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces 
out of Iraq and out of harm's way.
  This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy 
our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a 
limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct 
targeted counterterrorism and training missions and protect U.S. 
personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way--they will continue 
receiving their equipment, training, and salaries. It will simply 
prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq and will 
provide a hard deadline for bringing them home. By passing this bill, 
we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full 
range of threats that we face around the world.
  There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its 
constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict. 
Just yesterday, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled 
``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War.''
  Without exception, every witness--those called by the majority and 
the minority--did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's 
authority to use the power of the purse to end a war. A number of the 
witnesses went further and said that Congress has not only the 
authority but the obligation to take specific actions that are in the 
interest of the nation.
  I would like to read one quote by Mr. Lou Fisher of the Library of 
Congress. He said, and I quote:

       In debating whether to adopt statutory restrictions on the 
     Iraq War, Members of Congress want to be assured that 
     legislative limitations do not jeopardize the safety and 
     security of U.S. forces. Understandably, every Member wants 
     to respect and honor the performance of dedicated American 
     soldiers. However, the overarching issue for lawmakers is 
     always this: Is a military operation in the nation's 
     interest? If not, placing more U.S. soldiers in harm's way is 
     not a proper response. Members of the House and the Senate 
     cannot avoid the question or defer to the President. 
     Lawmakers always decide the scope of military operations, 
     either by accepting the commitment as it is or by altering 
     its direction and purpose. Decision legitimately and 
     constitutionally resides in Congress.

  There are significant historical precedents for this type of 
legislation that I have introduced today.
  In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to 
finance the introduction of ground combat troops into Cambodia or to 
provide United States advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in 
Cambodia.
  In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat 
activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:

       None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be 
     expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities 
     in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam 
     by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other 
     funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be 
     expended for such purpose.

  More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that 
prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in 
Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed 
legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia 
after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.
  Many Members of this body are well aware of this history. 
Unfortunately,

[[Page S1400]]

many Members of the Congress are still concerned that any effort to 
limit the President's damaging policies in Iraq would have adverse 
consequences.
  Let me dispel a few myths that have been generated as a result of the 
discussion about the use of the power of the purse.
  Some have suggested that if Congress uses the power of the purse, our 
brave troops in the field will somehow suffer or be hung out to dry. 
This is completely false. Congress has the power to end funding for the 
President's failed Iraq policy and force him to bring our troops home. 
Nothing--nothing--will prevent the troops from receiving the body 
armor, ammunition, and other resources they need to keep them safe 
before, during, and after their redeployment. By forcing the President 
to safely bring our forces out of Iraq, we will protect them, not harm 
them.
  Others have suggested that using the power of the purse is 
micromanaging the war. Not so. It makes no sense to argue that once 
Congress has authorized a war it cannot take steps to limit or end that 
war. Setting a clear policy is not micromanaging; it is exactly what 
the Constitution contemplates, as we have heard today. Congress has had 
to use its power many times before, often when the executive branch was 
ignoring the will of the American people. It has done so without 
micromanaging and without endangering our soldiers.
  Some have argued that cutting off funding would send the wrong 
message to the troops. Our new Defense Secretary even made this 
argument last week with respect to the nonbinding resolution now under 
consideration. These claims are offensive and self-serving.
  Congress has the responsibility in our constitutional system to stand 
up to the President when he is using our military in a way that is 
contrary to our national interest. If anything, Congress's failure to 
act when the American people have lost confidence in the President's 
policy would send a more dangerous and demoralizing message to our 
troops--that Congress is willing to allow the President to pursue 
damaging policies that are a threat to our national security and that 
place them at risk.
  Any effort to end funding for the war must ensure that our troops are 
not put in even more danger and that important counterterrorism 
missions are still carried out. Every Member of this body, without 
exception, wants to protect our troops, and our country. But we can do 
that while at the same time living up to our responsibility to stop the 
President's ill-advised, ill-conceived, and poorly executed policies, 
which are taking a devastating toll on our military and on our national 
security. It is up to Congress to do what is right for our troops and 
for our national security, which has been badly damaged by diverting so 
many resources into Iraq.
  As long as this President goes unchecked by Congress, our troops will 
remain needlessly at risk, and our national security will be 
compromised. Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to 
stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it is not because it 
doesn't have the power; It is because it doesn't have the will.

                          ____________________