FEINGOLD INTRODUCES BILL TO END U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ |
# # #
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Feingold Introduces Bill to End U.S. Military Involvement in Iraq
# # #
Monday, April 2, 2007
SENATOR REID COSPONSORS BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS, CUT OFF WAR FUNDING
Sen. Reid and I are introducing a bill that would require President Bush to begin redeployment and effectively end our military mission in Iraq by March 31, 2008.
By Sen. Russ Feingold
Apr. 02, 2007 | Many Americans remember the tragic deaths of U.S. troops in Somalia in the early 1990s, vividly portrayed in the movie "Blackhawk Down." Those 18 service members died in a misguided, poorly defined military mission that had dragged on without an end date and without the support of the American people.
As Congress debates the war in Iraq, the congressional debate over Somalia 14 years ago has some surprising parallels. Without question, Somalia in 1993 differs in many ways from Iraq in 2007, from the scope of the mission to the reason for that mission in the first place. What hasn't changed, however, is Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission, and its ability to use that power without endangering the safety of our brave troops.
That is exactly what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and I propose to do with legislation we will introduce when the Senate reconvenes next week. Our bill would require the president to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq in 120 days, with redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008. After March, funding for the war in Iraq would be cut off, with three narrow exceptions -- targeted counterterrorism operations, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training and equipping Iraqi forces. In other words, the current military mission in Iraq would be effectively ended. Sen. Reid has said he will work to make sure the Senate votes on our bill by the end of May.
Since President Bush has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of fixing his failed Iraq policy, it is no longer a question of if Congress will end this war; it is a question of when. The Feingold-Reid bill may be attacked by those who support this misguided war. But for many members of Congress, what they say and do now about Iraq flies in the face of what they said and did in 1993 regarding Somalia.
Today, some supporters of the Iraq war suggest falsely that efforts to cut funding for the war are a threat to our troops in the field. But in 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. Defenders of the Iraq war pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops, and raise the specter of troops being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment and resources they need. Every member of Congress agrees that we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. And every member of Congress should know that we can do that while at the same time ending funding for a failed military mission. That was clearly understood in October 1993, when 76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.
None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them 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.
The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.
Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."
The debate about the Iraq war is the most important, and the most difficult, issue we face as a country. Any American, including any member of Congress, is entitled to support or oppose Congress' using its constitutional power to end our involvement in this disastrous war. But, in contrast to the 1993 debate about Somalia, today some wrongly suggest that ending funding for the Iraq war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops. That misleading argument makes it harder to have the thoughtful, responsible debate about the war that Congress and the American people so badly need.
Now is no time for phony arguments against ending funding for the Iraq war. There may be big differences between the military missions in Somalia and Iraq, but Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that this power can be used without jeopardizing the safety of U.S. troops. As Congress debates Iraq -- and considers the new Feingold-Reid legislation -- we should remember Somalia, put false arguments aside, and have an open, honest debate about a war that drags on with no end in sight.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War
Good morning, and welcome to this hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee entitled “Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War.” We are honored to have with us this morning a distinguished panel of legal scholars to share their views on this very important and timely issue.
I thank Chairman Leahy for allowing me to chair this hearing. Let me start by making a few opening remarks, then I will recognize Senator Specter for an opening statement, and then we will turn to our witnesses.
It is often said in this era of ubiquitous public opinion polls that the only poll that really matters is the one held on election day. On November 7, 2006, we had such a poll, and all across this country, the American people expressed their opinion on the war in Iraq in the most significant and meaningful way possible -- they voted. And with those votes, they sent a clear message that they disagree with this war and they want our involvement in it to stop.
The President has chosen to ignore that message. So it is up to Congress to act.
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 four 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 two 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 non-binding 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’ 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’s the President’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six 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 counter-terrorism 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. 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.
In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. 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.
Our witnesses today are well aware of this history, and I look forward to hearing their analysis of it as they discuss Congress’s power in this area. They are legal scholars, not military or foreign policy experts. We are here to find out from them not what Congress should do, but what Congress can do. Ultimately, it rests with Congress to decide whether to use its constitutional powers to end the war.
The answer should be clear. Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will.
# # #
Senator Feingold Chairs a Judiciary Committee Hearing on Congress's Power to End a War
Read about Senator Feingold’s Judiciary Committee hearing on Congress's power to end a war.
Read Senator Feingold's op-ed and blog calling for Congress to use its power of the purse to end the war in Iraq.
Read a fact sheet on Senator Feingold's legislation to end our military involvement in Iraq.
Read or listen to Senator Feingold’s call for Congress to end our involvement in Iraq during the January 24th Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting.
Read, listen, or watch Senator Feingold call on Congress to use its power of the purse to end our involvement Iraq during a January 10th Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Monday, January 29, 2007
The Feingold Option: How to end the war
| January 29, 2007 |
| by Justin Raimondo |
| Sen. Russ Feingold may have withdrawn from the presidential sweepstakes, but he has entered the national debate over the Iraq war in a fairly dramatic fashion. Indeed, he has matched the president's escalation with one of his own by launching hearings, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, designed to point out the obvious – that Congress has the power to cut off the funding for the war. He plans to introduce legislation doing just that. Naturally, the piece reporting this on the new Politico Web site frames the matter in terms of the "conventional" wisdom, personified by the ultra-conventional Sen. Harry Reid, who opines, "Republicans 'would like this debate to be as whether or not we are going to be cutting off money for the troops. The logical conclusion is that a lot of things can happen. But right now, the most important thing is to tell the president that what he has done with the escalation is wrong. And that's what we are doing, bipartisanly.'" Democratic complicity in this futile and increasingly dangerous conflict is only underscored by the weakness of the party's ostensible opposition to it: they say they're against it, but on the other hand, apart from sponsoring nonbinding resolutions and posing for the cameras, they refuse to take meaningful action to end it. They can appeal to the president until they're blue in the face, but as Dick Cheney pointed out the other day, that won't stop this White House. What will stop them, of course, is if Congress cuts the purse strings: that's the one and only way to end this senseless policy, because not even Cheney and his pet neocons can wage war without dineros. Like a parent who cuts off an errant teenager's credit card after it's maxed out, Congress can discipline the warmakers and ensure we're out of Iraq by voting to make funds unavailable after a date certain. But Reid and his fellow enablers of Republican militarism are quaking in their boots at the prospect, supposedly on the grounds that this will leave the Democrats open to the charge that they've abandoned the troops in the field – without bullets, without body armor, and at the mercy of the enemy. That's a lot of malarkey, since the money appropriated for current military operations was voted on and disbursed a while back. Aside from that, however, if our delusional commander in chief leaves the troops in Iraq after the cutoff date, then the blame will fall on his shoulders, and no one else's. In any case, however, the real reason Democrats are allowing this president to play out his Napoleon complex using American troops as pawns has nothing to do with Reid's lame explanation, and is, instead, due in large part (albeit not exclusively) to what Wesley Clark points to as the decisive influence of "New York money." The presidential contest looms large on the political horizon, and the War Party's enormous financial resources are crucial to the Democrats' electoral success. To take one example: Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire who funded the Saban Center for Middle East Studies at Brookings – which played such a key role in buttressing liberal hawks in the run-up to war – is the single largest donor to Democratic politicians, disgorging a whopping $13 million to political candidates (although President Bush came in for his share of Saban's largess). Speaking of the Democratic Party, the Huffington Post – which has, not surprisingly, become a glorified bulletin board for the Democratic National Committee – is also the recipient of Saban's generosity, where he no doubt contributes more than merely his (and his wife's) bromidic posts. In 2002, Kenneth Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center, published his enormously influential book, The Threatening Storm, which retailed the neocons' dubious "intelligence" describing Saddam's WMD to Democratic hawks. Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their pathbreaking Harvard University study of the Israel lobby, describe the pro-war Saban as an "ardent Zionist." And the beat goes on: not content with atomizing the Iraqi nation, the War Party and their moneybags are now taking on Iran. As Matthew Yglesias avers: "Most major American Jewish organizations cater to the views of extremely wealthy major donors whose political views are well to the right of the bulk of American Jews, one of the most liberal ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore, it's true that major Jewish organizations are trying to push the country into war." The Democrats, in short, have sold out for 20 pieces of silver. They have to be careful, however, to walk a fine line between passively enabling our war-crazed president and visibly aiding him. Yesterday, they were cowering before the Republican-neocon onslaught that labeled anyone who so much as questioned the war plan as a traitor and a terrorist collaborator, while today they strike an oppositional pose. One almost wishes they'd go back to cowering, what with all those "nonbinding" (i.e., utterly meaningless) antiwar resolutions floating around Congress. In the U.S. Senate, only Feingold has any balls, and he is pretty much an isolated figure, a kind of senatorial Dennis Kucinich. Yet there is hope… Sentiment to get us out of Iraq and prevent the next war is building, and the antiwar forces have the momentum. If a national movement can be mobilized around the narrow issue of the Feingold option, then the weak Reids of this world can be shown to be wrong, not only morally but strategically as well. For every moment the Democratic congressional majority continues to vote funds for this war – and future wars to come – they buy into a failed policy and make it their own. Once they begin to realize the political difficulties of such a tenuous position – and that day of enlightenment is not far off – they can be pushed (kicking and screaming) into taking their opposition to the war out of the symbolic realm and into the world of the actual. What you can do is contact your congressional representatives and let them know you support Sen. Feingold's pending resolution to cut off funding. There's just one way to end this war, and that is by simply ending it. Enough is enough: vote yes on the Feingold resolution! |