[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 28739-28740]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 28740]]

     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.
  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.

                          ____________________