[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 166 (Tuesday, October 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13571-S13572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAN
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are now more than halfway through our
fifth year in this war in Iraq. We find ourselves stuck as an occupier
in a Middle East civil war. Thousands of our sons and daughters have
been killed or injured. The total financial cost may be well over $1
trillion--money, I might add, that this administration has borrowed
against our children's future.
America's reputation internationally has been severely damaged and
critical military, diplomatic, and intelligence resources have been
diverted from the war in Afghanistan--a war I supported, and a country
this administration has increasingly neglected. And now, after so many
errors, so many lives, and so much damage, this administration is again
raising the prospect of yet another war in the Middle East--this time a
war with Iran.
I fear this administration has learned nothing from the colossal
error, colossal misjudgment in the invasion of Iraq. Let me be clear: I
am gravely concerned about Iran's activities in the region and its
nuclear agenda. But any offensive action against Iran must be approved
by Congress. The Constitution is very clear: Article 1, section 8 vests
in Congress the power to declare a war. Our Founding Fathers did this
for an important reason. Taking a nation into war is a serious decision
and must be decided with the consent of the people. The Framers wisely
gave Congress this power based on experience in other nations in which
their executives too easily took nations to war in the pursuit of
glory, ambition, treasure, or revenge.
In fact, as my colleague Senator Byrd of West Virginia has eloquently
said in the past, it is exactly during the time of war or emergency
that our constitutional principles--checks and balances, separations of
powers--are the most critical.
Recent statements by this administration give me concern that this
administration is considering just this--an offensive military action
against Iran without the consent of Congress. Both President Bush and
Vice President Cheney have made public remarks about Iran that suggest
an administration readying for military aggression. We know Vice
President Cheney's historic views on fundamental checks and balances in
our constitution. They are disturbing.
For example, in 1996, the PBS documentary series, ``Frontline,'' ran
an episode on the fifth anniversary of the gulf war. It included a
troubling interview with Dick Cheney, who was Secretary of Defense
during the first Bush administration. In it, Secretary Cheney said:
I argued in public session before the Congress that we did
not need the congressional authorization. I was not
enthusiastic about going to Congress for an additional grant
of authority. I was concerned that they might well vote no,
and that would make life more difficult for us.
President George H. W. Bush, nonetheless, wisely sought, and
received, congressional approval. Yet incredibly, Secretary of Defense
Cheney said at the time:
If we had lost the vote in Congress, I would certainly have
recommended to the President that we go forward anyway.
Those were his words as Secretary of Defense. Now, not only a
heartbeat away from the President but also the closest counsel to the
President, we know what his views are in terms of the role of Congress
and our constitution. He is not alone. President George W. Bush has
shown similar disregard for the role of Congress and the law with his
regular use of signing statements. Let me read an excerpt from his
signing statement from the 2002 Iraq war resolution. President Bush
wrote that while he appreciated receiving congressional support,
My request for it did not, and my signing this resolution
does not, constitute any change in the long-standing
positions of the executive branch on either the President's
constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or
respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or
on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.
The President was appreciative that Congress, the majority of
Congress, gave their support for his war in Iraq. He made it abundantly
clear at his signing statement he didn't believe it was necessary.
And in October 2005, when asked by members of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations whether the President would circumvent congressional
authorization if the White House chose military action against Iran or
Syria, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice replied:
I will not say anything that constrains his authority as
Commander in Chief.
So now we know. Not only the President but the Vice President and the
Secretary of State view the Constitution, when it comes to the
declaration of war, as an annoyance, not to be taken seriously, if it
would in any way stand in the path of a commander in chief's agenda.
Apparently, the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of
State see congressional approval for war as an option, not a
fundamental requirement under the Constitution. This should trouble
every American.
Let me also be clear that nothing this Congress has previously said
or done authorizes offensive military action against Iran. Nothing.
Following the attacks of September 11, Congress passed Senate Joint
Resolution 23 on September 18, 2001. It authorized the President to use
armed forces
against those nations, organizations, or persons against
those he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11.
This language was certainly never intended to allow this President to
initiate offensive military action against Iran.
Later, in October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. It authorized the President to
use armed forces
to defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Again, that resolution was never intended to allow military action
against Iran.
[[Page S13572]]
Even more troubling is how this administration missed early
opportunities to deal with the challenge of Iran. For example, shortly
after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, moderates in the Iranian
Government faxed an offer to the State Department--a ``grand bargain,''
they called it. It arrived at a time when moderates were still in power
in Iran and it reportedly had the approval of the Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khomenei.
The grand bargain offered to put all issues on the table with the
United States--Iran's support for terrorist groups in the region, its
nuclear program, among other things. Tragically, this administration
ignored it, as it ignored so many diplomatic opportunities prior to the
invasion of Iraq. Hellbent on use of our great military, it ignored a
diplomatic opportunity that could have been historic. The Iranian
moderates were discredited, replaced by hard-line elements who today
are pursuing more reckless policies in the region.
A war with Iran could have devastating consequences. It could further
inflame an already intense Middle East, further radicalize terrorist
organizations, lead to more death and disability, and severely disrupt
trade and oil shipments in the Middle East. It could entangle our
beleaguered military in yet another complex, long-term conflict.
Richard Armitage, President Bush's former Deputy Secretary of State,
warned us. He said:
It would be the worst of worlds for an outgoing
administration to start a conflict.
How right he was. Accordingly, any such decision must be taken
seriously and with deliberation.
Last week, I introduced a resolution affirming in very plain, concise
language the constitutional requirement that this President, any
President, must seek congressional approval before initiating an
offensive military action, such as one in Iran. Perhaps that time may
inevitably arrive--I hope not--but if it does, this President cannot
stand alone or act alone. The Constitution requires that he come to
this Senate and the House of Representatives in the Capitol to make his
case to the American people.
I recall his press conference of 2 weeks ago. The President brought
up an image which was hard to comprehend--the image of a third world
war, a third world war if we didn't take action against Iran. I know
Iran is a threat in the region, I know they sponsor terrorism, I know a
nuclear Iran is not a stabilizing force but a destabilizing force, and
yet for this President to walk away from economic sanctions, diplomatic
alternatives, and to suggest that the military is the only way to prove
our resolve is to once again remind us that 5 years ago this same
President came to us and asked for the invasion of Iraq.
I remember Vice President Cheney telling us our soldiers would be
greeted with flowers and parades and a triumphant welcome. That lasted
for such a short period of time. And now, 3,900 American soldiers,
3,900 American lives later, tens of thousands who have been injured and
disabled, we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict with no end in
sight.
This President is looking to the exit on January 20, 2009. This
Congress has to stand with one voice, Democrats and Republicans, and
remind this President that as he heads for the exit he shouldn't head
America into a new war. We are not prepared for this. We don't need
this. And the President needs to understand what we do need is a chief
executive who will follow the Constitution.
____________________