[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S601-S602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 308. A bill to prohibit an escalation in United States military 
forces in Iraq without prior authorization by Congress; to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week President Bush announced a plan to 
escalate U.S. military involvement in Iraq, the continuation of his 
failed policy in Iraq. I am strongly opposed to this course.
  That is why I have introduced legislation today that will prohibit 
the number of troops in Iraq from exceeding the current force levels 
without an explicit authorization from Congress. As of January 16, 
2007, United States Central Command reports 130,500 American service-
members operating within the borders of Iraq.
  It is my hope that Congress can begin debate on my proposal and 
others that may be forthcoming before the week is out. It is imperative 
that we in Congress act swiftly on this crucial issue.
  Let's be very clear, my bill does not prohibit additional funding for 
American troops who are currently in harms way. I will continue to do 
everything that I can to support our troops so long as they are 
stationed in Iraq. My bill would prohibit President Bush from 
increasing the number of U.S. service-members in Iraq without prior 
authorization from Congress.
  The President's decision to escalate U.S. military involvement is a 
true disservice to American troops who have shown nothing but 
professionalism and courage, and who should not be asked to risk their 
lives to become cannon fodder in a civil war rife with ethnic 
cleansing.
  Moreover, I do not believe that the authorization provided by 
Congress in 2002 gives the President unlimited authority to send 
additional troops to Iraq for a mission which is completely different 
from the one the President himself articulated in March 2002, shortly 
after committing U.S. forces to Iraq. On March 22, 2002, the President 
of the United States said that our goal in invading Iraq was ``to 
disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's 
support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.''
  We all now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq to be disarmed. So we can no longer justify an additional troop 
presence on the grounds of WMDs. Saddam Hussein is no longer in a 
position to support terrorism, or anything else for that matter. As for 
freeing the Iraqi people--Iraq's dictator is dead and the Iraqi people 
have duly elected their own leaders to govern them.
  Nothing in the 2002 resolution, or in the President's articulation of 
his goals for Iraq prior to that resolution suggested that the United 
States would, could, or should be engaged in trying to referee a civil 
war.
  So Congress is confronted with two choices--do nothing; or respond 
decisively in opposition to staying the course--a course that is sure 
to produce an even more violent, less stable political and security 
climate in Iraq.
  To me, that choice is clear. Leadership demands that those of us who 
think the President is on the wrong track, not simply stand up and say 
so, but act to stop this escalation from going forward.
  I know that enacting legislation to stop the President from the 
course he has chosen will not be easy. But that doesn't mean that the 
Congress shouldn't debate it and vote on it--that is exactly what the 
American people sent us to Congress to do.
  We have arrived at a moment of choice. The President and this 
Administration have chosen escalation--more bloodshed, more chaos, and 
more violence. If the President wants to escalate our military 
commitment to Iraq, and if the President wants to send more troops into 
the center of a civil war, then the President must make that case to 
the United States Congress and let the full Congress vote on the merits 
of such a plan.
  The President has stated that he believes that as Commander-in-Chief 
he has the authority to order troops to Iraq in the face of 
Congressional opposition. We are a Nation of laws. The President is not 
above those laws. If Congress passes legislation to limit the 
deployment of troops to Iraq, the President will no longer have the 
luxury of ignoring the views of the Congress, a co-equal branch of 
government. And the time for a blank check is over.

[[Page S602]]

                                 ______