[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 29 (Thursday, February 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2013-S2015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the issue of American presence in the 
Middle East is of great importance. We are currently engaged in a war 
in Iraq from which, according to poll after poll, a majority of the 
American people believe we should withdraw.
  In the face of the momentous elections of this past November, in 
which the American electorate indicated their dissatisfaction with the 
President's policies in Iraq, President Bush has responded with a call 
for more troops, not less. At this moment, he is escalating the war, 
not redeploying our brave men and women out of harm's way. He is 
sending these troops into the middle of a civil war.
  Now there are reports that the President may be considering expanding 
this tragic war into Iran. The President has no constitutional 
authority to make war on Iran without congressional approval, nor has 
he historical precedent. I offer today a resolution ``expressing the 
sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military 
action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from 
Congress.'' The resolution sets forth the constitutional grant of 
authority to Congress for declaring war and funding any war, it cites 
Federalist Paper No. 69 on the intention of the drafters of the 
Constitution, and it cites Presidents Washington and Jefferson on the 
power reserved to Congress to authorize war.
  The resolution strongly and unequivocally affirms that the President 
does not have the power to initiate military action against Iran 
without first obtaining authorization from Congress, that neither of 
the existing authorizations to use military force in Iraq gives him 
such authority, and that the President must seek congressional 
authority prior to taking any military action against Iran.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment across the Rotunda, not far 
from here, in the House of Representatives, there is an ongoing debate 
about the war in Iraq. It has been 2 or 3 days of debate with Members 
each allowed 5 minutes to express their feelings about this war. It is 
historic. It happens rarely that that procedure is used, almost always 
in cases involving war. I have been through it as a Member of the House 
of Representatives and can recall the sleepless nights that led to 
votes on questions of war. You know that at the end of the day, if the 
decision to go forward on a war is made, people will die.
  Many decisions we make on the floor of the House and Senate have 
little consequence, some are purely ceremonial, and some just deal with 
money. But when it comes to war, it is a matter of life and death. So I 
am sure every Member of the House of Representatives, regardless of 
their feelings about this war, has thought long and hard about what 
they are saying. They have taken this matter very seriously because 
they understand that America is taking this very seriously.
  We have lost over 3,100 of our best and bravest soldiers, men and 
women who have gone off to war with parents behind and families crying, 
wondering if they will return safely. Unfortunately, they did not, some 
of them. There are some 23,000 or 24,000 who have returned with serious 
injuries. Some are minor, but some are very serious, such as 
amputations and blindness, traumatic brain injuries and many other 
injuries that will haunt these soldiers for a lifetime as they try to 
return to normal life.
  We have spent a lot of money on this war, over $400 billion. As we 
labor with this new budget, we see the result of the decision to go to 
war. From the monetary side, it shortchanges America in terms of what 
we desperately need. Whether we are talking about additional medical 
research, help for education, money to schools that need a helping hand 
to make No Child Left Behind work, assistance for families to have 
health insurance and health protection, this war has been costly to 
America. For those who believe the money would have been better spent 
right here at home, that a strong America begins at home, there is a 
serious concern about when this war will end and what the ultimate cost 
will be.
  We know our military is much different today than when we invaded 
Iraq. It was an invasion this President decided to make without 
provocation and, frankly, without evidence that there was any serious 
threat against our country. Having made that decision, having gone 
overseas and lost these lives and brought back so many injured 
soldiers, we understand now we live in a different Nation. We live in a 
Nation where we watch, sadly every day, evidence of violence in Iraq, 
evidence of innocent people being killed on their streets, and 
unfortunately our own soldiers are caught in the crossfire of their 
civil war.

[[Page S2014]]

  In the last election, the American people were finally given a chance 
to speak about this war, and they said: We want a change. We don't want 
this to continue. We don't want to continue to lose these brave 
soldiers or continue to spend this money. They elected a Congress which 
was given the charge of moving us in that new direction. For the first 
time in a long time, Democrats control both the House and the Senate. 
In the Senate, it is a very scant margin. On a good day, it is 51 to 
49.
  Those who know the Senate, know that important measures take 60 
votes. In order to achieve passage, we need bipartisan cooperation. We 
need to reach across the aisle and find common ground. We have tried to 
do that. In some respects, we have been successful. We have passed 
bipartisan ethics reform to deal with some of the issues of integrity 
that have haunted this Chamber and the House of Representatives over 
the last several years. We have passed a minimum wage increase at the 
Federal level for the first time in 10 years--something long overdue. 
We even passed a spending bill to finish this fiscal year, to try to 
mop up some of the unfinished business from last year's Congress, which 
left town with many appropriations bills unresolved.
  The one issue we have not addressed in the Senate, the issue now 
being debated in the House of Representatives, is the war in Iraq. We 
feel--many of us on the Democratic side and some on the Republican 
side--that we should have this debate. We owe it to the American 
people. Members should stand up and state where they are, what their 
position is, and what they think we should do as a Nation. I know if 
this debate took place, it would be important not just for this 
institution but for the country to know we came here understanding our 
responsibility.
  Two weeks ago, we offered to the Republican side of the aisle an 
opportunity to debate the very fundamental question raised by the 
President's new plan for Iraq. The President has proposed another 
21,000 American soldiers in combat mode going into Iraq to join the 
130,000 already there. We know that 21,000 combat soldiers would 
require at least the like number of support troops, so it is a 
substantial escalation of the war to add 42,000 or 44,000 American 
soldiers to the 130,000 already there. Many of us think it would be a 
serious mistake. We question whether escalating this war, sending more 
troops into harm's way, is any way to bring it to an end.

  We have tried it before unsuccessfully. Additional troops, as good as 
they are, cannot overcome the ravage of a civil war. Unfortunately, we 
have learned that we suffer more casualties every time we send our 
brave soldiers and marines and airmen and sailors into this conflict. 
So we tried 2 weeks ago to start the debate, to let Members stand and 
say whether they support the President's escalation of the war or 
whether they oppose it.
  Most Americans have an opinion. In fact, overwhelmingly they say it 
is a bad idea. When asked, they can give a yes or no as to whether they 
support the President's escalation. We offered to the Republican side 
of the aisle not just a yes or no but their answer to our criticism of 
the President's escalation. We said we would stand by two separate 
Republican resolutions to be offered on the floor. One Republican 
resolution, sponsored by John Warner, Republican of Virginia, critical 
of the escalation of the war, was supported by most Democrats, 
including myself. The other, offered by Senator John McCain, a 
Republican of Arizona, supports the President's position on the war.
  I think it would have been a spirited debate, an important and 
historic debate, but the Republicans rejected that. They wanted more. 
They wanted more resolutions brought to the floor. They didn't want us 
to focus on the very fundamental issue at hand. They wanted to bring in 
other issues, such as funding for the war, support for the troops, and 
so many things that were not at issue, were not what we were 
discussing. So we tried to keep the focus on the basic issue: Should we 
escalate the number of troops committed to this war?
  We had what we call a cloture motion, which means closing down debate 
on a certain issue. A cloture motion would say we are going to move to 
the debate on the war in Iraq. We called that cloture motion, and it 
failed. As I said, we don't have 60 votes on this side of the aisle. We 
need help on the other side of the aisle. Only two Republican Senators 
said we will join you in calling for a debate on the Warner resolution 
and a debate on the McCain resolution. Two Republicans stepped forward. 
The rest said: No, we don't want that debate.
  Well, an odd thing happened. After that vote, many of the Senators 
had Senator's remorse, I call it. It is a version of buyer's remorse. 
They wished they had cast another vote. Within days, they started 
coming to the floor and saying, that isn't what we meant to say. We 
didn't want to say stop the debate on Iraq. We believe there should be 
debate on Iraq. Yes, they said, we voted to stop the debate on Iraq, 
but we didn't mean to stop the debate on Iraq.
  They were so transparent. They were twisted in knots. They came to 
the floor repeatedly, seven or eight of them. They sent letters to the 
leadership. They had press conferences, and they talked to anyone in 
the hallway, saying they had made a mistake and they wanted to return 
to the issue. So we gave them that chance today. We gave them that 
chance. We said: Let us return to the issue, let us debate the issue on 
the floor of the Senate as they have done it in the House, and let us 
also add to that another Republican opportunity for the McCain 
amendment, which supports the President's position. We would have, 
again, a basic vote on a fundamental issue, fair and square. What did 
the minority leader from Kentucky do? He objected. He didn't want to 
engage in that debate. That is truly unfortunate. While the House of 
Representatives is deeply engaged in a debate of historic moment, 
important to everyone across this country and particularly to our men 
and women in uniform, unfortunately, the minority objected. They don't 
want to engage in a straight up-or-down debate on the fundamental 
issue.
  The argument they make is, we have many other things we want to talk 
about when it concerns Iraq. We may want to talk about funding for 
Iraq. We may want to talk about the ability of Congress to cut off 
funding--all of these issues. And we have said to them, that is all 
well and good, we will give you the chance to do it. As soon as this 
debate is finished on the escalation of troops, the President's 
proposal, we will immediately, within hours, move to the next issue, 
the 9/11 Commission recommendations, open to amendment, and then you 
can offer whatever amendment you care to on the issue of Iraq.
  So it wasn't a matter of foreclosing the debate, it was a matter of 
saying: Let us focus the first part of this debate on an up-or-down 
question on the President's escalation of the war. You can vote, as the 
House is about to, saying this is a bad policy or you can support 
Senator McCain, who believes that sending more troops is the right 
policy. They rejected it.
  So now we have been forced to a position, which I am not happy with, 
but which we have to accept, and that is we have to call another 
cloture vote, another procedural vote, another attempt to move us to a 
debate stage. That vote is going to occur, as presently scheduled, on 
Saturday afternoon. It will be a historic vote as well because, once 
again, the Republican minority will have a chance to join us in 
starting the national debate on Iraq in the Senate.
  The question is: Will they support this effort this time? I hope they 
will. I hope they will come on Saturday, as inconvenient as it may be 
in their personal schedules, and join us in voting for cloture. If they 
will, if we can bring 60 votes forward to close down debate on the 
procedural aspects and move forward on the real debate about Iraq, it 
is a good thing for America. If they continue to hold to this position 
that they are going to protect this White House from any possibility of 
embarrassment, that they are going to somehow stop the Senate, which 
has a reputation as the great deliberative body on Capitol Hill, if 
they are going to stop the Senate from the debate on Iraq, it will be 
at the expense of this institution and, more importantly, at their own 
expense.
  The American people, whatever their position on this issue, expect us 
to stand up and debate it and to say where we stand. We will find on 
Saturday how

[[Page S2015]]

many of the Republican Senators answer the rollcall; how many come and 
how they vote.
  We know that as inconvenient as it may be for these Senators to 
return on Saturday, as tough as it may be for many of them to get back, 
it can't be any tougher than the assignments we give to our soldiers 
and sailors and marines and airmen to put on the uniform of our United 
States of America and to defend our country and to risk their lives 
every day.
  So I hope our colleagues will be with us on Saturday. I hope they 
will join us in moving forward on this debate.
  I can recall the vote that led us into the war in Iraq as if it were 
yesterday. It was a time just weeks before an election. There was 
almost a feeling of hysteria across this country about the possibility 
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Condoleezza Rice, who was then 
Security Adviser to the President, suggested the possibility of 
mushroom-shaped clouds. All sorts of fears were engendered in a 
population still very wary after 9/11. It was not an easy vote because 
there had been a buildup, this drumbeat of support for invasion. And 
the day came in October when it occurred. There were 23 of us who voted 
no, one from the State of Rhode Island on the Republican side and 22 
Democrats voting no. At the time, it was not an easy vote. I look back 
on it now as one of the most important votes I ever cast.
  There comes a time when Members of the Senate have to face 
responsibility and face a vote. There will come a time when the 
Republicans have to face a vote on Iraq. They cannot protect the 
President and the White House indefinitely and forever.
  I had a great friend from the State of Oklahoma, a Congressman by the 
name of Mike Synar. I have told this story many times, and I mention 
his name because I don't want him to be forgotten. He passed away in 
1996 from a brain tumor. But Mike was one of a kind. He just could not 
stand Members of the House of Representatives who were unwilling to 
face tough votes. He used to get up in our caucus over there and get 
the floor, and we knew what was coming when people were whining and 
complaining about facing a controversial vote or controversial debate. 
And he said:

       If you don't want to fight fires don't be a fireman, and if 
     you don't want to cast tough votes don't run for Congress.

  He was right. Whether you are on this side of the aisle or that side 
of the aisle, you better be prepared to face a tough vote and an 
important vote, and nothing is more important than a war, a war which 
has so many of our great soldiers with their lives on the line as we 
stand in the safety of this Capitol Building.
  I hope my colleagues on the Republican side will reconsider their 
position. They cannot stop this debate. It is going to occur. It is 
occurring across America in family rooms, in offices, in schools, in 
restaurants. Everywhere you turn, in the streets, in the shopping 
centers, it is occurring. It is going to occur right here on the Senate 
floor. They cannot hold back the tide. It is building against them. 
That tide is going to push them over, and we are going to bring this 
issue to a debate on the floor. We owe it not only to the men and women 
in uniform, we owe it to the people who were kind enough to give us a 
chance to serve in the Senate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________