Senate Floor Statement on the Feingold Amendment, S.A. 2924

Mr. President, I agree with much of the Feingold amendment, particularly as it relates to the desire to transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq and to commence the reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq. Indeed, I have long sought those actions in an attempt to put the Iraqi security forces in the lead and to bring pressure on the Iraqi government to make the political compromises necessary for reconciliation among the three main Iraqi groups.

My concerns with the Feingold amendment are principally two. First of all, the mission to which U.S. forces would be limited after June 30, 2008 are too narrowly drawn and would not, in my view, allow our forces to carry out the missions that would be required. For example, I don’t believe we should limit the duration and scope of targeted operations against al Qaeda as the amendment provides. I also don’t believe we should preclude our forces from being embedded with Iraqi forces. I also believe the continuing mission of U.S. forces should include providing logistic support to the Iraqi security forces, which is prohibited by the Feingold amendment. In that regard, I would note that the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq that was led by retired Marine General Jim Jones specifically pointed out the logistic shortfalls of the Iraqi security forces and that they would need to rely on Coalition support for this function.

My second chief concern is that restricting appropriations for our military sends the wrong message to our troops who are performing so heroically on the battlefield in Iraq. It would also pose extraordinarily difficult decisions for our field commanders. They could be faced, for instance, with determining whether a member of the Iraqi security forces has ever been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks against U.S. forces, because if they were they could not be trained by our forces under the terms of the amendment. Indeed, an incorrect determination could subject the commander to violations of our anti-deficiency laws which prohibit the expenditures of appropriated funds except to specified purposes.

It is concerns such as these which lead me to vote "no" on the Feingold amendment.