[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1074-S1075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE RESOLUTION 39--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE NEED
FOR APPROVAL BY THE CONGRESS BEFORE ANY OFFENSIVE MILITARY ACTION BY
THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ANOTHER NATION
Mr. BYRD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. 39
Whereas the United States has the best trained, most
effective military in the world;
Whereas the United States military is made up of dedicated,
patriotic men and women;
Whereas the men and women in the United States military
reflect the highest values and the spirit of our Nation;
Whereas the United States Government has the responsibility
to ensure that the men and women of the United States
military are provided for to the fullest extent;
Whereas the United States Government has the responsibility
to make certain that the lives of the men and women of the
United States military are never put at risk without the
utmost consideration;
Whereas military action by the United States must not be
undertaken without the most careful preparation;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States is designed
to meet the needs of the Nation in peace and in war and to
meet any common danger to the Nation;
Whereas in time of war and periods of emergency, in
particular, the constitutional principles of separation of
powers and checks and balances are most critical; and
Whereas offensive military action by the United States must
not be undertaken without full and thorough debate in the
Congress: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that, under the Constitution of the United States, it
is the Congress that has the power to take the country from a
state of peace to a state of war against another nation;
(2) that the framers of the Constitution understood that
the President, in an emergency, may act to defend the country
and repel sudden attack, but reserved the matter of offensive
war to the Congress as the representatives of the people;
(3) that the Senate affirms the requirement under the
Constitution that the President seek approval of the Congress
before the United States undertakes offensive military action
against another nation;
(4) that consultation by the President with the Congress on
any United States undertaking of offensive military action
against another nation must allow sufficient time for the
Congress to fully debate the matter and shape national
policy; and
(5) that any offensive military action by the United States
against another country shall occur only after the Congress
has authorized such action.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, to many Americans, the word ``Vietnam'' has
become a painful remainder of a bloody quagmire of a never-ending war
without an exit strategy. Certainly, Vietnam is a reminder of failed
leadership and two destroyed Presidencies. Like the Johnson and Nixon
administrations during the Vietnam era, when their war policies were
attacked, the Bush administration wraps itself in the American flag and
often engages in tactics of impugning not only the integrity but the
patriotism of its critics. President Bush has even said those who
compared Iraq to Vietnam send the wrong message to our troops. Such a
comparison, he suggests, harms our troops.
I continue to be alarmed that the war in Iraq shows all the signs of
degenerating into an equally calamitous debacle as Vietnam. And that is
the point. The war in Vietnam lasted more than 10 years. It took more
than 58,000 American lives. That long, painful war could have been
avoided. Thousands of American lives could have been saved. The blood
of thousands of American sons and daughters could have been saved. It
need not have been spilled. That is why references to Vietnam are being
made when talking about the war in Iraq. I make the comparison because
I am furious, absolutely furious, that this Government, after the
bitter and bloody experience of Vietnam, has failed to heed the lessons
of Vietnam.
How could we have failed to consider the lessons of Vietnam before
stumbling into Iraq? I didn't vote to go into Iraq. I said, hell, no, I
won't go. We are doing the wrong thing if we go into Iraq. Did they
listen? Did they hear? The American people have a right, the public has
a right, to ask this question.
As a Senator, I have an obligation both morally and politically to
ask that question. How could we not think about the error this country
made with respect to Vietnam before we invaded Iraq? The similarities
were obvious. In opposing the Iraq war resolution, which I did, I and
others expressed concern that the Iraq resolution was another Gulf of
Tonkin resolution and could well lead to another Vietnam. As to the
Tonkin Gulf resolution, S.J. Res. 46, I explained in this way:
. . . have several things in common. Congress is again
being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence
that the country poses an immediate threat to the national
security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on
a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up,
politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress
is again being rushed into a judgment.
And I quoted Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed
the Tonkin Gulf resolution, as he proclaimed:
The resolution will pass, and Senators who voted for it
will live to regret it.
How right he was.
Tragically, tragically, as the war in Iraq has progressed, the
parallels with the Vietnam war continue to mount. We have learned that,
once again, the American people were led down the primrose path in
rallying support for a costly war. Congress and the American people
were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yes. They were
told about Saddam Hussein's connections to al-Qaida. They were told
about Iraq trying to purchase uranium from Africa.
The cost of the war was once estimated to be less then $100 billion.
But the bill is now rising ever closer to half a trillion dollars. As a
result, the National Journal pointed out, ``as with Vietnam, political
support for [the war in] Iraq has proved to be fragile in part because
it was secured by justification that has been discredited.''
In each of the two wars, American soldiers were placed in the
treacherously difficult situation of having to fight an uncertain,
indistinguishable
[[Page S1075]]
enemy, never knowing friend, never knowing foe, until they started
shooting. As in Vietnam, our soldiers are once again confronted with
the deadly situation of trying to ferret out insurgents in a population
that is willing--listen--a population that is willing to hide them.
In each war, we went in thinking of ourselves as liberators. We came
to be seen by the people we were supposed to be liberating as the
invaders. In each war, where it was so necessary for us to win the
hearts and minds of the people of the country, our presence there,
instead, alienated the people of the country and turned them against
us. In each war, both the White House, yes, and the Pentagon, yes,
grossly and tragically underestimated the determination and the
ferocity of our opponents.
Bring them on, bring them on, President Bush chided the Iraqis and
terrorists on July 2, 2003. Do you remember that? I do. He said ``bring
'em on.''
In the time since he made that statement ``bring 'em on,'' we, the
American people, have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war.
Yes, ``bring 'em on.'' ``Bring 'em on.'' And so they brought them on.
We have lost more than 2,800 troops in that war. As of today, 3,062--
get that--3,062 Americans in total have been killed in Iraq. And for
what? And for what, I ask? As of today, 3,062 Americans in total have
been killed in that war.
Yes, ``bring 'em on,'' President Bush chided the Iraqis and
terrorists on July 2, 2003. So I will say it once more. We have lost
more than 2,800 troops in that war since President Bush said: ``bring
'em on.''
Former Senator Max Cleland--do you remember him? I remember him. He
used to sit right back there. Max Cleland, bless his heart, recently
pointed out that American forces have now ``become sitting ducks in a
shooting gallery for every terrorist in the Middle East.''
Although Congress should have learned important lessons from the
Vietnam war, there are now ominous indications that a path to a new
military confrontation is being created right before our eyes. Just
this month, the President announced his intention to ``interrupt the
flow of support from Iran and Syria'' into Iraq.
What does this saber-rattling comment really mean? Hear me. Does the
President seek to expand the ongoing war beyond Iraq's borders? Does
he? Does this comment really mean that? Or are we already on a course
to another war in the Middle East? Are we? Will Syria or Iran be the
Cambodia of a 21st century Vietnam? Will Syria or Iran be the Cambodia
of a 21st century Vietnam?
In the State of the Union Address last night, the President called
out Iran no less than seven times. Was the speech the first step in an
effort to blame all that has gone wrong in the Middle East on Iran? Was
the focus on Iran during the President's address an attempt to link
Iran to the war on terrorism, and, by extension, start building a case
that our response to the 9/11 attacks must include dealing with Iran?
I fear--and I hope I am wrong--that the machinery may have already
been set in motion which may ultimately lead to a military attack
inside Iran or perhaps Syria, despite the opposition of the American
people, many in Congress, and even some within the President's
administration.
Wise counsel from congressional leaders to step back from the
precipice of all-out war in the Middle East is too easily disregarded.
To forestall a looming disaster, Congress must act to save the checks
and balances established by the Constitution.
Today I am introducing a resolution that clearly states that it is
Congress--the Congress, the Congress, not the President--that is vested
with the ultimate decision on whether to take this country to war
against another country.
This resolution, which I hold in my hand--here it is--this resolution
is a rejection--hear me--a rejection of the bankrupt, dangerous, and
unconstitutional doctrine of preemption. Let me say that again. This
resolution, which I hold in my hand, is a rejection of the bankrupt,
dangerous, and unconstitutional doctrine of preemption, which proposes
that the President--any President--may strike another country before
that country threatens us, before that country threatens us. That is
the doctrine of preemption: We may strike, we may attack, we may invade
another country before it threatens us.
Now, this resolution, which I am going to introduce, returns our
Government to the inspired intent of the Framers, God bless them, of
the Constitution who so wisely placed the power to declare war in the
hands of the elected representatives of the American people.
If there exists a reckless determination for a new war in the Middle
East, I fear that the attorneys of the executive branch are already
seeking ways to tie this war to the use of force resolution for Iraq,
or the resolution passed in response to 9/11. But the American people
need only be reminded about the untruths of Iraq's supposed ties to the
9/11 attacks to see how far the truth can be stretched in order to
achieve the desired outcome.
If the executive branch were to try to prod, stretch, or rewrite the
9/11 or the Iraq use of force resolutions in an outrageous attempt to
apply them to an attack on Iran, on Syria, or anywhere else, this
resolution of mine is clear--clear as the noonday Sun in a cloudless
sky--this resolution is clear: The Constitution says that Congress--we
here and those over there on the other side of the Capitol--the
Constitution says that Congress, not the President, must make the
decision for war or peace. The power to declare war resides in
Congress--resides here--and it is we--we, the elected representatives
of the people--who are the ``deciders.''
Congress has an obligation to the people of the United States. With
so many of our sons and daughters spilling their blood in one costly
war, Senators and Representatives have a moral duty to question whether
we are headed for an even more tragic conflict in the Middle East. But
in order to question this administration--in order to fulfill the
duties entrusted to us by the Constitution, to which we have sworn to
support and defend--Congress must first insist that the powers given to
this body--the Congress, the Senate and the House--are held sacrosanct.
We must insist that these powers, including the power to declare war,
are not usurped by this President or any other President who will
follow.
The resolution, Mr. President, which I am submitting today, is an
effort to protect the Constitution--an effort to protect the
Constitution--from the zeal of the executive branch, whose very nature
is to strive for more and more power during a time of war.
It is time now for Congress to put its foot down and stand up for the
Constitution. Our Nation did not ask to be put into another Vietnam.
Let us not deceive ourselves that we are somehow immune to another
Cambodia. Let us stop a reckless, costly war in Iran or Syria before it
begins by restoring the checks and balances that our Founders so
carefully--so carefully--designed.
I send, Mr. President, the resolution to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be received and
appropriately referred.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let the title be read, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the title will be read.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 39) expressing the sense of the
Senate on the need for approval by the Congress before any
offensive military action by the United States against
another nation.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank the clerk.
I yield the floor.
____________________