[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2258-2260]
[From the U.S. 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. Res. 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.

[[Page 2259]]

  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 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

[[Page 2260]]

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.

                          ____________________