Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the Final Passage of S. 1689, the Iraq and Afghanistan Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill October 17, 2003 Mr. President, I do not support the Administration's policy in Iraq. After listening to the Administration's hard sell, after hearing a series of ever-shifting justifications for our policy, after discovering that some of these justifications were of extremely dubious credibility, after confronting the Administration's reluctance to straightforwardly acknowledge the costs and commitments entailed in the occupation of a major Middle Eastern country, after watching the Administration alienate potential allies who could help us share this burden – after all of this, I do not support the notion that American taxpayers should be saddled with astronomical burdens and tremendous debt to support this misguided approach. I wish our policy had been different. But I must deal with the reality before us today. The stakes are too high to do anything else. Mr. President, I cannot oppose this bill. I cannot pull the rug out from under our brave troops on the ground, who were called to serve and now find themselves in harm's way, confronting suicide bombings and guerilla warfare tactics. This bill contains resources that they need, and I will cast my vote to get them those resources. I also recognize that stability and reconstruction in Iraq are in our national interest. For years now, I have urged my colleagues to recognize the dangers inherent in weak and failing states around the world. I have studied the appeal that such states hold to criminal opportunists, including terrorists. And I know that a weak or failing Iraq would present a threat to this country. To abruptly pull the plug on reconstruction, to leave Iraq to the disorder that filled the vacuum left by the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, would make us less safe, less secure. So I will not vote against the final passage of this very problematic bill. But Mr. President, I want to be very clear about two points – my vote does not suggest that I am resigned to accepting the Administration's policy. I am not, and I will continue to urge them to change it. That is my responsibility as a member of this body, and I will not abandon it. My vote also does not mean that I will support future funding for the Iraq mission if the Administration fails to put that mission on a sounder footing. Over 330 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Iraq – and over 190 of those deaths occurred after the President declared an end to major military operations. Many more have been seriously injured. The Administration has tried to argue that Iraq is the central battlefield in the war on terror. I strongly disagree with that point of view. Iraq is at best a distraction from that war, which should be our country's main focus. At worst, our invasion and occupation of Iraq may well turn out to be a major setback in our efforts to combat terror. The extremely well-respected International Institute for Strategic Studies recently released a report indicating that "war in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased al Qaeda's recruiting power and morale and, at least marginally, its operating capability." Mr. President, I remember what the Vietnam war did to this country. I remember when good people convinced themselves that they had to keep accepting terrible losses because of sunk costs, I remember those desperate and destructive efforts to salvage the credibility of long-since discredited policy. Iraq is not Vietnam, but the lessons of history must not be forgotten. Without a better plan, without burden sharing, without a clear strategic vision that refocuses on this country's first foreign policy priority – the fight against the terrorists who attacked this country on September 11th, 2001 and their allies – without these changes, withdrawing from Iraq will be the right thing to do. Mr. President, I would like to comment on one of the most contentious issues that arose during the debate on the supplemental bill — the debate about grants versus loans. This week I was unable to support the amendment offered by Senator Dorgan to the supplemental bill before the Senate. I do not believe that it is in our national interest to have U.S. authorities making decisions about how to use future Iraqi oil revenues. On this point, the President is right. To do so would play into the hands of those who would promote the ugliest, most distorted images of American motives abroad, conjuring images of imperialism and corruption, and undermining one of our greatest sources of strength internationally – the compelling power of our principles and ideals. But while the President is right about that point, he is wrong to place this heavy burden almost entirely on the shoulders of American taxpayers. I am by no means enthusiastic about financing Iraqi reconstruction with huge grants. Iraq's reconstruction needs should be met, to the extent possible, by Iraqis themselves. But the decisions about the use of Iraqi oil should be Iraqi choices, not decisions made by American occupation authorities. That is why I was pleased to support the amendment offered by Senators Bayh and Nelson, which converted a portion of the grants to loans, and leverages this approach to encourage international debt forgiveness. This amendment did not involve any U.S. decisions about Iraq's future oil revenues, rightly leaving those decisions to the Iraqi people. Once again, I urge the Administration to take concrete steps to build meaningful international support and ensure real burden-sharing in the international community. I was pleased to support the amendment offered by Senators Byrd and Kennedy, which called on the Administration to present a concrete and detailed plan for working with the rest of the world to bring stability to Iraq. I am disappointed that the amendment was defeated. The best way to avoid making unfair demands on the Iraqi and American peoples is to give our allies a meaningful role in the country and ask that they in turn contribute to reconstructing the country. Mr. President, I am pleased that three amendments I offered to this bill were adopted. First, I offered an amendment to establish an Inspector General for the Coalition Provisional Authority, so that there will be one auditing body completely focused on ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, and that this effort is free of waste, fraud, and abuse. I am troubled by some of the seemingly inexplicable requests and figures contained in the Administration's funding request – the $6,000 phones, the state-of-the-art postal system, the new monuments, all of them in an "emergency" request. At the very least, we should take concrete steps to ensure that vigorous oversight and auditing mechanisms are in place to protect each and every taxpayer dollar. I also offered an amendment to help alleviate some of the difficulties faced by families of military personnel deployed or preparing to deploy for a contingency operation. My amendment allows a spouse, son, daughter, or parent who already qualifies for benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act to use their benefits for issues arising from one additional set of circumstances – the deployment of a family member. Our military families – be they active duty, Guard, or Reserve – are coping with tremendous strains and a great deal of unpredictability. Longstanding childcare arrangements can be suddenly upended; in a matter of days, legal powers may need to br transferred to allow a spouse to maintain control of the home while his or her partner deploys. This amendment has been endorsed by the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the National Partnership for Women and Families. I am delighted that it was adopted, and I hope it brings some measure of relief to the families who are sacrificing so much. I was also pleased that two other amendments to help our Guard and Reserve were adopted. One was an amendment offered by Sen. Bill Nelson to provide $10 million for the Family Readiness Program of the National Guard. This program provides needed support services and assistance for Guard families prior to, during, and after deployment. And I was pleased to vote for an amendment offered by Sen. Durbin, which also passed, that would ensure that federal employees who take leave without pay in order to serve do not see a reduction in their pay. In addition, Mr. President, I thank the managers for accepting a very modest amendment that I offered calling for the Coalition Provisional Authority to regularly post up-to-date information in both English and Arabic on its website about oil revenues, seized and frozen assets, and how these resources are spent. Recently the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World reported on how much needs to be done to address the inadequacies of our current public diplomacy efforts. Making a good-faith effort to be transparent when it comes to what is happening to Iraqi resources is just basic good sense, and that means making an effort to communicate in Arabic. Mr. President, I believe that the amendments I have discussed are small steps in the right direction, but I remain deeply concerned about where the Administration's policy is leading us overall. I hear the concerns of my constituents everyday – constituents who wonder when their loved ones in the military will come home, constituents concerned about the massive deficit, constituents who feel betrayed by the mixed messages and shifting justifications of the Administration. Voting on this bill does not mean that Congress can set aside the issue of Iraq. In fact, voting on this bill should make it painfully clear to all of us – we have a great deal of work to do to get our policy on a firm footing and we cannot afford to wait any longer.

# # #