[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 30 (Friday, February 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2158-S2161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, before I begin discussing the war in 
Iraq, I wish to say a few words about another issue that is perhaps 
even more important and that is the constitutional issues at the very 
heart of this entire debate.
  Let me be very frank: I am not a great fan of the Bush 
administration. And of the many grave concerns I have about President 
Bush and his actions, at the top of that list is that the President 
seems not to understand what the Constitution of the United States is 
all about. Whether it is the consistent attack on our constitutional 
rights which his administration has pursued for a number of years or 
his ``signing statements'' which attempt to circumvent legislation 
passed by Congress, the President appears to believe he can do whatever 
he wants, whenever he wants to. That, in my view, is not what the 
United States of America is all about, and it is not what our 
Constitution provides for.
  In that regard, I wish to inform my colleagues in the Senate that I 
have submitted a resolution, similar to one introduced by Congressman 
DeFazio in the House, that makes it very clear the President does not 
have the constitutional authority to start a war against Iran without 
the express authority of the Congress. There are many people in my 
State of Vermont--and there are people all over this country--who are 
deeply worried that the President may take us into a war in Iran and 
that he is currently laying the groundwork for that war in exactly the 
same way he led us into the war in Iraq.
  So let me be very clear: If President Bush were to start a war in 
Iran without receiving the authority to do so from Congress, he would 
not only be creating, in my view, an international disaster, he would 
also be creating a major constitutional crisis. I hope very much he 
does not do that.
  President Bush fails to understand the power to declare war under the 
Constitution is given to the Congress, not the President. My 
resolution, S. Con. Res. 13, is very simple. It states clearly that it 
is ``the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate 
military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from 
Congress.'' I hope my colleagues will give strong support to this 
resolution.
  Mr. President, in my State of Vermont and all across this Nation, the 
American people are increasingly concerned about the war in Iraq. As 
others have stated more eloquently than I, the American people want 
real debate in Washington, in the Senate, on this issue that is 
worrying people all across our Nation. More importantly, not only do 
they want debate, they want action, and they want action now.
  Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why some of my colleagues 
would try, through parliamentary maneuvers, to prevent a vote on what 
is at best a very modest proposal. This issue is not complicated in 
terms of what will be taking place tomorrow on this floor. It seems to 
me that if you support President Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq--
and there are many who do--then vote against the resolution. That is 
your right. On the other hand, if you don't believe that an escalation 
of this war is a sensible idea--and I certainly do not--then vote for 
the Reid resolution. But at the very least, there should be a vote. Let 
the American people know how we stand.
  Let me be clear in giving you my perspective on this war: In my view, 
President Bush's war in Iraq has been a disaster. It is a war we were 
misled into and a war many of us believe we never should have gotten 
into in the first place, a war I voted against as a Member of the 
House. This is a war the administration was unprepared to fight. The 
administration has shown little understanding of the enemy or the 
historical context in which we found ourselves.
  Who will ever forget President Bush declaring ``mission 
accomplished'' aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln when, in 
fact, the mission had barely begun. Who will forget Vice President 
Cheney telling us that the insurgency was ``in its last throes'' just 
before some of the bloodiest months of the war. Who will forget those 
Bush advisors who predicted the war would be a cakewalk, nothing to 
worry about, and that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators.

  This war in Iraq has come at a very high price in so many ways. This 
is a war that has cost us terribly in American blood. As of today, we 
have lost over 3,100 brave American soldiers. In my own small State of 
Vermont, we have lost 25. Twenty-three thousand more Americans have 
been wounded, and tens of thousands will be coming home with 
posttraumatic stress disorder which will impact their lives forever. 
This is a war which, with the President's proposed increase in funding, 
will cost us some $500 billion, with the price tag going up by $8 
billion every month. This cost is going to add to the huge national 
debt we are leaving to our children and our grandchildren and it is 
going to make it that much more difficult for us to fund health care, 
education, environmental protection, affordable housing, childcare, and 
the pressing needs of the middle class and working families of our 
country which have been so long neglected. Yes, for more military 
spending; no, for the needs of ordinary Americans who are struggling so 
hard to keep their heads above water.
  This increased expense for the war will make it that much harder for 
us to fund the needs of our veterans whose numbers are increasing as a 
result of this war. This is a war which has caused unimaginable horror 
for the people of Iraq. People who suffered so long under the brutality 
of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship are suffering even more today. There 
are estimates that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or 
wounded and almost 2 million have been forced to flee their own 
country, some 8 percent of their entire population. While civil war 
tears neighborhoods apart, children are without schools, people are 
without electricity, health care, and other basic necessities of life. 
The doctors and nurses, teachers and administrators who have provided 
the professional infrastructure for the people of Iraq are now long 
gone.
  This is a war which has lowered our standing in the international 
community to an all-time low in our lifetimes, with leaders in 
democratic countries hesitant to work with us because of the lack of 
respect their citizens have for our President. Long-time friends and 
allies are simply wondering: What is going on in the United States of 
America, that great country? This is a war which has stretched both our 
Active-Duty military to the breaking point as well as our National 
Guard and Reserve forces.
  Morale in the military is low, and this war will have a lasting 
impact on the future recruitment, retention, and readiness of our 
Nation's Armed Forces.

[[Page S2159]]

  This is a war which has, in many respects, lowered our capability to 
effectively fight the very serious threats of international terrorism 
and Islamic extremism. Five years after the horrific attacks of 9/11, 
Osama bin Laden remains free. Using the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq 
as their rallying cry, al-Qaida's strength around the world continues 
to grow. And currently the situation in Afghanistan is becoming more 
and more difficult.
  Tragically, this administration has refused to listen to the American 
people who, in this last election, made it very clear they want a new 
direction in Iraq and they want this war wound down. This 
administration has refused to listen to the thoughtful suggestions of 
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which included two former Secretaries 
of State, including President Bush's own father's Secretary of State, 
as well as a former Presidential Chief Of Staff and a former Secretary 
of Defense, that it was time for a change of direction. The President 
didn't listen to them. This administration has refused to listen to the 
advice of our military leaders in Iraq who told us increasing troops 
from the United States would make it easier for the Iraqi Government 
and military to avoid their political and military responsibilities. 
The more troops that come in, the easier it is for the Iraqi Government 
to avoid making the political compromises and the tough choices they 
have to make.
  This administration has refused to listen to the Iraqi people, who, 
according to a number of polls, tell us very strongly that they believe 
in the midst of all of the chaos and horror taking place in Iraq today, 
the Iraqi people say they would be safer and more secure if our troops 
left their country. In fact, this administration has tragically refused 
to listen to anybody, except that same shrinking inner circle, led by 
Vice President Cheney, who has been consistently wrong from day one. 
Those are the people the President continues to listen to.
  As most everybody understands, and as the recent National 
Intelligence Estimate has recently confirmed, the situation in Iraq 
today is extremely dire. The sad truth is that now there are no good 
options before us; there are simply less bad options. In Iraq today, 
according to Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, there are now at least 
four separate wars being fought--four separate wars that our soldiers, 
who have fought with incredible bravery and skill, now find themselves 
in the middle of.
  Let me quote Secretary Gates, who has recently stated:
  I believe there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq: One is 
Shia on Shia, principally in the south; second is sectarian conflict, 
principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and 
fourth is al-Qaida.
  The reality today, as described by the Secretary of Defense, has 
nothing to do with why President Bush got us into this war in the first 
place. In March of 2002, he told us Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction and that they were poised to use them against us. That was 
not true and certainly has no relevance to the war today. In 2002, he 
told us Iraq was somehow linked to al-Qaida and had some responsibility 
for the 9/11 attack against our country. That also turned out not to be 
true and certainly has no relevance today to the situation in which we 
find ourselves.
  In the 2006 elections, the American people, in a loud and 
unmistakable voice, told us they no longer had confidence in the Bush 
administration's handling of the war in Iraq. In my view, they told us 
they wanted Congress to begin asserting its constitutional authority 
over this war and that they wanted us to rein in this administration. 
Most importantly, they told us they wanted us to begin the process of 
bringing our troops home as soon as possible. And as a Vermont Senator, 
that is exactly the effort I intend to make.
  In my view, the Reid resolution before us is but a small first step 
at moving us forward. If it is passed--and I hope it will be--it must 
be followed with much stronger legislation that has real teeth in it. 
That is what the American people want. I have cosponsored legislation, 
introduced by Senator Kennedy, that would prohibit the use of funds for 
an escalation of U.S. military forces without a specific, new 
authorization from the Congress--a prohibition also included in the 
legislation introduced by Senator Obama, whose bill I also support.
  Instead of just voicing our disapproval of President Bush's 
escalation of the war in a nonbinding manner, we should now be 
considering legislation that provides for the safe and orderly 
redeployment of virtually all of our troops out of Iraq within the next 
year, even as we continue to give support to the Iraq Government and 
their military for the purpose of helping them accept their political 
and military responsibilities. That is the legislation we should be 
passing.
  Senator Feingold has introduced legislation requiring that our troops 
be redeployed from Iraq within 6 months of passage of the bill. Senator 
Obama has introduced similar legislation requiring that our troops be 
redeployed starting this May.
  In my view, while I will vote for the Reid resolution tomorrow, and 
while I think it is terribly important that we bring together a 
bipartisan effort to tell the President this escalation is wrong, the 
bottom line is we must go forward well beyond that, and we must do that 
in the near future. We must exercise the constitutional responsibility 
we have over the power of the purse.
  We are mired in a war that has now gone on longer than any American 
involvement--longer than American involvement in either the First World 
War or the Second World War. We will spend more money on this war in 
real dollars than we spent on either the Korean war or the Vietnam war. 
Our standing in the international community has declined and our 
ability to combat international terrorism has been seriously 
compromised.
  It is time to say no to this ill-conceived escalation. It is time to 
deploy our troops out of harm's way. It is time to end this war and to 
bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I have listened 
carefully to the remarks of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders. I 
know of his passion and his knowledge on the subject. That was 
demonstrated by his words this evening. He speaks from the heart on 
many issues. I know he spoke from his heart this evening about this war 
in Iraq. Before him, Senator Whitehouse, a new colleague from Rhode 
Island, read letters he received from constituents asking the same 
questions we are hearing across Illinois and across the country--
questions about why we are in this war and how we will start to bring 
our troops home.
  Today, in the House of Representatives, in a historic vote, by a 
margin of 246 to 182, the House of Representatives made it clear they 
do not approve of President Bush's new policy to escalate this war in 
Iraq.
  I think you have to step back for a moment and reflect on what 
happened today. Four years into a war--which Senator Sanders has 
reminded us has lasted longer than World War I or II--we are now 
engaged in the first meaningful debate about the course of that war 
since the invasion; and 3,132 American soldiers have died, thousands 
have been injured, billions have been spent, and for years the 
Congress, in the thrall of another party, didn't have a hearing, didn't 
have a debate, and didn't question the policy of this war.
  It is no surprise that the American people reached the limit of their 
tolerance and, in the last election, made it clear they want a change--
not just a change in Congress but a change in the policy when it came 
to this war in Iraq. I was heartened after the election, particularly 
when President Bush asked for the resignation of Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld. I thought that finally we were going to see a breakaway from 
this so-called neocon theory that dragged us into this terrible 
conflict. Unfortunately, what I hoped for wasn't realized. Even though 
I think Robert Gates, the successor of Rumsfeld, is a good man and will 
be a good Secretary of Defense, when it came time for the President to 
talk about the policies of the war and what we would do, he dug the 
hole deeper.

  I am not a military strategist and don't profess to be. There are 
people in our caucus with military experience who can speak to a wise 
strategy and an unwise strategy. I am not necessarily one of those, nor 
do I profess to be. But I have been to Iraq twice--first, in the early 
stage, when we visited the Green Zone in Baghdad and it

[[Page S2160]]

was so dangerous that we could not even stay overnight. In October, we 
were allowed to stay the night and visit with troops in the field and 
talk to some of the people who were working in Iraq. I will share some 
of those recollections in a moment.
  First, let me tell you that my highest priority was to sit across the 
table from our soldiers, to break bread with them and talk about home 
and try to take their minds away from the danger of their daily lives. 
These men and women are the best. These are the best and bravest among 
us. They are volunteers to a person. They have enlisted in the services 
and they risk their lives every single day.
  Unfortunately, many want to drag this debate into a referendum about 
whether we respect, admire, and honor these troops. Any honest person 
would tell you that you should concede the obvious: We all respect, 
admire, and honor these troops. Many of us believe the best way to 
honor them is to start bringing them safely home. When I think about 
what they have faced, and continue to face, and I think about these 
young men and women getting into these humvees or walking the streets 
of Baghdad and other cities, risking their lives every day, I want this 
to end and end soon.
  What those on the other side argue is the opposite. They argue that 
the President is right, that sending more troops into harm's way is the 
best way to end the war. I could not disagree more. But the point of 
that disagreement is the reason the debate is necessary. It happened in 
the House. It should happen in the Senate.
  Tomorrow, we will have a chance, at 1:45 p.m. eastern time, to vote 
as to whether we will have a real debate on this war in Iraq. I am not 
hopeful. We need the cooperation of Republican Senators to even debate 
the issue. Many have already announced they are opposed to this debate; 
they don't want it to occur. I think they are wrong. I think they are 
walking away from our basic responsibility as Members of the Senate.
  I think those who want an escalation of the war need to answer some 
fundamental questions. I think they should answer the question: How 
many troops will be involved here? Will it be 21,000, as the President 
says or, as the CBO tells us, a number much larger than 21,000, which 
represents combat troops; they may need an equal or larger number to 
support those combat troops, endangering the lives of 40,000 more 
soldiers, not 20,000.
  Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker said yesterday that an 
increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents, in his words, 
``only the tip of the iceberg.'' It worries me that this is the 
beginning of a spiraling escalation, endangering even more troops.
  Army officials have also stated that virtually all of the U.S.-based 
Army combat brigades are not prepared to be deployed. The Army is 
scrambling to find the gear and personnel for units that are being sent 
to Iraq and Afghanistan, pulling both people and equipment out of other 
units, scavenging for pieces of equipment that are necessary, to get 
them ready in some fashion for battle. General Schoomaker testified 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee that--pay special attention 
to this--``I am not satisfied with the readiness of our nondeployed 
forces.''
  We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform. We ask for their 
commitment to our country. We ask them to be trained and to be brave. 
But we should never ask them to go into battle without the equipment 
they need in order to come home safely.
  What this general says, the outgoing Army Chief of Staff, is that 
that is exactly what is going to happen with this escalation. Men and 
women will be sent into dangerous situations without the protection 
they need.
  On January 25, the Department of Defense inspector general released a 
summary report that stated that American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan 
experienced ``shortages of force-protection equipment, such as 
uparmored vehicles, electronic countermeasure devices, crew-served 
weapons, and communications equipment.'' January 25, just a few days 
ago.
  The report went on to say:

       As a result, servicemembers were not always equipped to 
     effectively complete their missions.

  We have a special responsibility--those who make the policy in this 
town and those who vote for it--to keep our promise to these soldiers 
and their families that we will give them the training and equipment 
they need so they can perform their missions effectively.
  The same report I referred to stated that when servicemembers were 
asked to perform tasks outside their usual duties, they often did not 
receive the equipment necessary to perform their wartime mission.
  These were tasks such as training Iraqi forces, one of our most 
important missions, or disposing of explosives, a highly dangerous 
undertaking.
  Today's Washington Post states that approximately 40 percent of Army 
and Marine Corps equipment is now in Iraq or Afghanistan or undergoing 
repair or maintenance.
  It is inexcusable that 4 years and almost $400 billion into this war, 
we should be sending our troops into action without the equipment they 
need. Those who support the escalation and say they are supporting the 
troops need to be asked, and answer, the basic question: How can you 
support a soldier if you don't give them the equipment they need to be 
safe, perform their mission, and come home?
  Army Deputy Chief of Staff of Force Development, LTG Stephen Speakes, 
recently said the Army would need 1,500 up-armored trucks for the new 
forces that were being sent to Iraq. But he went on to say:

       We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the 
     trucks.

  He said it will take the Army months, probably until the summer, to 
supply and outfit additional trucks. In the meantime, units are sharing 
vehicles, many of which are not properly protected so that these 
soldiers will be safe.
  The Washington Post interviewed commanders in Iraq about the 
equipment situation. These commanders doubted that the new units would 
receive the full complement of humvees that they need.
  One senior Army official was quoted as saying shortfalls would be 
inevitable ``unless five brigades of uparmored humvees fall out of the 
sky.'' This official predicted some units would have to rely more 
heavily on Bradley fighting vehicles and tanks.
  The good news is that these vehicles are very highly armored, but 
they may not be the best vehicles for the mission.
  Our troops are the best. Shouldn't their equipment be the best? If 
you believe that an escalation of this war and more soldiers thrown 
into the crossfire of the civil war is in the best interest of America, 
shouldn't those same Senators step forward and demand that these 
soldiers be given the equipment they need?
  These equipment shortfalls are more acute on the battlefield, of 
course, but they are echoed throughout our military, including the 
Guard and Reserve. I recently met with Lieutenant General Blum, Chief 
of the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon. He reports that National 
Guard equipment readiness levels are at 34 percent. Guard units have 
about one-third of the equipment they need to be ready for battle. That 
is 34 percent of the equipment they need for missions at home and 
abroad. That is another direct cost of the war in Iraq.
  I asked the general what the Pentagon's plans were to address this 
situation. He said there was a 5-year budget plan to bring the Guard up 
to a readiness level of 60 percent, which incidentally is below the 
level of readiness when this war began.
  In the world we live in, 60 percent is not good enough if it is your 
son, your daughter, your brother, your sister, your husband, or your 
wife. It will cost another $40 billion to bring the Guard up to the 
readiness level that we really need. I think that is an investment we 
ought to make.
  That is one of the real costs of this war--to make sure our troops, 
our Guard, have the equipment they need. These issues demand our 
attention, our debate, and our vote.
  Tomorrow, if the Republicans refuse to cross the aisle to cooperate, 
to start this debate, these questions will not be addressed as part of 
this debate over the escalation of this war. That is not fair to these 
soldiers. That is not fair to their families. It certainly is not fair 
to the States and the people we represent.

[[Page S2161]]

  We should have an up-or-down vote, a basic exercise of Congress's 
responsibility. We have offered to the Republicans an opportunity to 
vote not only on the measure that passed the House today but on an 
alternative offered by Senator McCain, who is asking we increase the 
troops who will be involved.
  I have read many things about this war. Some of them I think are 
extremely insightful; some of them are troubling. Yesterday in the 
Washington Post, there was an article which laid out what was expected 
to happen in Iraq and never occurred.
  When GEN Tommy Franks and his top officers got together in August 
2002 to review the invasion plan for Iraq, they reflected on what would 
likely occur. By their estimate today, we would have 5,000 American 
soldiers left in that theater. Instead, we have over 130,000 and a 
President wanting to increase that number by 20,000 or 40,000 more. It 
shows that the planning and vision of the people who scheduled this 
invasion was seriously flawed.
  I joined 22 others on the floor of the Senate voting against the 
authorization for this war. I felt at the time that the American people 
had been deceived--deceived about weapons of mass destruction that did 
not exist, deceived about connections with al-Qaida terrorists and 9/
11, which did not exist, deceived about nuclear weapons and mushroom 
clouds when there was no threat.
  That deception that occurred in the fear and panic that still 
followed 9/11 led many of my colleagues to vote for this war. I was not 
one of them. But then came the time when I was challenged, and others, 
as to whether we would vote for the money to wage the war. I stopped 
and reflected and said if my son or my daughter was in uniform, I would 
want them to have everything they need to come home safely, even if I 
think this policy is wrong.
  These soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen didn't write this 
policy. It was written in the Pentagon and the White House. They were 
sent into battle with the battle plans that were handed to them, not 
battle plans that they wrote. They deserve a lot better. They deserve 
to come home. If they are going to war, they deserve the equipment they 
need. They deserve leadership in the White House and in Congress that 
is sensitive to their bravery and responds with real caring for their 
future.

                          ____________________