Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Misguided Gregg Resolution
As Delivered from the Floor of the U.S. Senate
March 15, 2007
Mr. President, I spoke yesterday in favor of the resolution introduced
by Senator Reid, S.J. Res. 9. By bringing the current open-ended military
mission to a close and requiring redeployment of U.S. troops, the
Reid resolution takes a significant, binding step toward ending our
involvement in the war in Iraq. I am pleased that the Senate will
have the opportunity to vote on that resolution shortly.
The Senate will also be voting on another resolution regarding Iraq,
sponsored by the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Unfortunately,
that resolution is badly flawed, and I strongly oppose it.
My chief objection is simple -- the resolution rejects the idea of
Congress using its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops
from Iraq. Moreover, it does so in a manner that can only be described
as inaccurate and almost intellectually dishonest. By warning against
"the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field,"
the resolution embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has
used to try to prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war.
Those who engage in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for
the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise
the specter of troops somehow being left on the battlefield without
the training, equipment and resources they need.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Every member of Congress
agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the
resources and support they need. Not a single member would ever vote
for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using
our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would
be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers.
By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated
-- as I have proposed -- Congress can safely bring our troops out
of harm's way.
How can I say this with such confidence, Mr. President? Because there
is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional
authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
I recently 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’
authority to end a war. Lou Fisher with the Library of Congress, one
of the foremost experts on separation of powers issues, pointed out
that Congress does not simply have the power – it has a responsibility
to exercise it when needed. He said, and I quote:
“The question to me, always remember, Congress -- is the continued
use of military force and a military commitment in the Nation's interest?
That is the core question. Once you decide that, if you decide it
is not in the national interest, you certainly do not want to continue
putting U.S. troops in harm's way.”
The argument that cutting of funding for a flawed policy would hurt
the troops, and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm’s
way supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending funding for the
war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq. Walter Dellinger
of Duke Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal:
"There would not be one penny less for salary of the troops.
There would not be one penny less for benefits of the troops. There
would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would
not be one penny less for supplies or support. Those troops would
simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized."
Instead of allowing the president's failed policy to continue, Congress
can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in
the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do
in my bill, and as the Reid resolution permits, that important counterterrorism
and other limited operations are still carried out.
For those who don’t believe this can be done, let me cite an
example from not too long ago. In October 1993, Congress enacted an
amendment sponsored by the senior Senator from West Virginia cutting
off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31,
1994, with limited exceptions. 76 Senators voted for that amendment.
Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator
Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator
Specter, Senator Stevens and Senator Warner. Did those 8 Senators,
and the many Democratic Senators who joined them, act to jeopardize
the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off
funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being
of our brave men and women in uniform?
Of course not, Mr. President. All of these members recognized that
Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military
operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which
funds would be terminated.
That same day, several Senators – myself included -- supported
an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The
amendment offered by Senator McCain on October 15, 1993, would have
eliminated Somalia funding right away except for funds for withdrawal
or in case of American POWs/MIAs not being accounted for. 38 Senators
opposed a measure to table that amendment. I was joined by many Republican
Senators in supporting the amendment, including none other than the
current sponsor of S.Con.Res. 20. Senator Gregg suggests in that resolution
that eliminating funds for troops would undermine their safety –
did he vote 14 years ago to do just that? Was Senator Gregg in 1993
committing the same egregious offense that Senator Gregg so strongly
opposes in 2007?
Of course not, Mr. President. No one could believe that Senator Gregg
would be cavalier about the safety of our troops, or indifferent to
their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. Senator Gregg
knew in 1993, as did I, that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate,
safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived
military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.
Unfortunately, his new resolution seems to have forgotten this point.
I hope that my colleagues will think better of efforts such as that
proposed by Senator Gregg today. All Senators, including the distinguished
senior Senator from New Hampshire, are entitled to their opinions.
And all Senators are certainly entitled to oppose my efforts to end
funding for a disastrous war. But by putting forth misleading and
baseless arguments – by suggesting that ending funding for the
war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops – they are
making it that much harder to have the open, honest and essential
debate about the Iraq war that this body, and the American people,
so badly need.
Audio
Only
|
