[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10494-10495]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          SEPARATION OF POWERS

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, the Founders of our country did not 
believe in monarchy. They put up with one king for a while and didn't 
want to have to put up with another one down the line. Meeting in 
Philadelphia about 220 years ago, about 30 miles from my home in 
Wilmington, DE, our Founding Fathers did not invest all power over 
national affairs in our national destiny in the hands of any one 
person. Rather, they created a separation of powers. They created, as 
we all know, three coequal branches of Government.
  I don't sit down every day or night and actually open the 
Constitution and read it. But every now and then I think a review of 
some of it and its parameters is instructive. For those who take the 
time--particularly looking at the debate we have had in recent days on 
whether it is appropriate for us to provide some guidance and 
expression with respect to the expenditure of these moneys in the 
supplemental appropriations, especially in Iraq--it is helpful to look 
at the Constitution and get a sense of what our Founding Fathers had in 
mind.
  In looking at article II in this copy of the Constitution, section 2, 
there is about a sentence where it talks about the power of the 
President. This is what it says:

       The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and 
     Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several 
     States, when called into the actual Service of the United 
     States.

  That is what it says. You can go back a couple pages before that to 
article I, section 8, and our Founding Fathers talk about the powers 
and responsibilities of the legislative branch in this regard. Here is 
what it says, in part:

       The Congress shall have the power To . . .

  Then there are all kinds of things listed, such as lay and collect 
taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, and so forth, with foreign 
nations. It also says the Congress shall have the power:

       To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and 
     make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
       To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money 
     to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years;
       To provide and maintain a Navy;
       To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land 
     and naval Forces;
       To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the 
     Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel 
     Invasions;
       To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the 
     Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be 
     employed in the Service of the United States.

  It goes on and on.
  The point I am trying to make is that the Constitution makes it clear 
that there is a division of responsibility, a sharing of 
responsibilities. Part of it lies with the executive branch, and a 
great deal lies with the legislative branch. For those of us who are 
trying to figure out which is the right side to come down on with 
respect to these issues, keep in mind the words of the Constitution.
  When it comes to charting our Nation's course in Iraq, all three 
branches of Government do have responsibilities. For the President to 
go to war in Iraq, he had to come to us in Congress for approval, for 
authorization. Now, to continue that war he has had to come back to the 
Congress each and every year to request and receive approval for more 
funding.
  Both Congress and the Supreme Court have exercised oversight over 
this President's war policies--Congress through oversight hearings, and 
the Supreme Court through rulings on constitutional questions 
concerning the detention and interrogation of prisoners. That Congress 
act as a coequal branch of Government, and not a rubberstamp for 
decisions made by the President, is what the Founding Fathers wanted in 
1787. I believe it is what most of the American people want today. It 
was, in part, because Congress failed in recent years to exercise 
adequate oversight over the President's policies in Iraq that the 
American people went to the polls last November and demanded a change 
in this body and in the folks in the House of Representatives.
  Let's not debate today, at this moment, whether Congress has a role 
to play in charting our course in Iraq. We do. Let's not kid ourselves 
that Congress can meet its responsibilities in this regard by 
continuing to rubberstamp the decisions of the President.
  The President has come to Congress once again to request continued 
funding for the war in Iraq. To put matters in the most basic of terms, 
Congress has three options: We can say yes, we can say no, or we can 
say yes, but.
  To simply to say yes, after U.S. policy and conditions on the ground 
have drifted in the wrong direction for more than 3 years, I believe 
would be to abdicate our responsibility as a coequal branch of 
Government.
  To simply say no, when we have troops on the ground in harm's way, 
would be a betrayal of the very Army this Congress is charged by the 
Constitution to raise and support.
  The responsible action is to respond to the President's request by 
saying yes, but. It is to provide our troops with the support they need 
to perform their assigned mission but at the same time to exercise our 
power as a coequal branch to begin to change the nature of that 
mission.
  The first part of our response to the President--funding the troops--
should not be controversial. I don't believe it

[[Page 10495]]

is in this body. The President has requested the funding. We are 
providing that funding for our troops. Indeed, we are not only 
providing what the President requested, we are making some additions, 
particularly to improve the care of the wounded when they come home.
  The second part of our response to the President--seeking a change in 
the nature of our mission in Iraq--should not be controversial either.
  There is an old saying: The definition of insanity is doing the same 
thing over and over again and expecting different results. We have been 
approaching the challenges we face in Iraq in essentially the same 
manner now for close to 4 years. Over that time, conditions on the 
ground have grown progressively worse. It is clearly time that we 
change our approach.
  Last year, the minority in Congress called for such a change. In 
response, the American people, the voters of this country, made that 
minority in Congress last year a majority this year. That majority--
this majority--has a responsibility to the people who elected us and 
who pay our keep to follow through and demand change from the 
President, from the executive branch.
  The changes that we seek are not sudden nor are they rash. They 
reflect the sober assessments and the unanimous recommendations of the 
bipartisan Iraq Study Group, cochaired last year ably by Jim Baker, a 
prominent Republican, and former Representative Lee Hamilton, a highly 
regarded Democrat who also served as Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission.
  The Iraq Study Group said we need to make it clear to the leaders of 
the various factions in Iraq that we are not going to be there forever. 
That is the first message we are sending with this legislation.
  The President, and some around him, equate this with surrender. But 
his own Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, said otherwise last 
week. He said the fact that Congress is beginning to send this message 
to the leadership in Iraq is having a beneficial effect on the ground 
in Iraq. His words, not mine.
  Last year the Iraq Study Group said a political settlement between 
the factions in Iraq is needed to quell the sectarian violence. The 
legislation Congress will send to the President today or tomorrow 
establishes benchmarks by which Congress and the American people can 
measure the progress of the administration and the leadership in Iraq 
toward achieving this political settlement.
  The Iraq Study Group said that a diplomatic settlement is needed 
among Iraq's neighbors to ensure regional stability. The legislation 
Congress will send to the President this week creates a window of 
opportunity, while our forces are transitioned to a new mission for a 
regional diplomatic offensive aimed at containing Iraq's sectarian 
violence and preventing a broader regional conflict.
  The President does not want to change the mission in Iraq. I believe 
he wants to do more of the same. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group 
rejected that approach, the American people have rejected that 
approach, and now the Congress of the United States is rejecting that 
approach.
  For all who wonder what this debate is really about, it comes down to 
two points--one a point of agreement, the other a point of 
disagreement.
  On one point, the Congress and the President do agree that we should 
support the troops. The way to support the troops is for Congress to 
pass this bill and I believe for the President to sign it. The funding 
is all there.
  On one point, Congress and the President disagree. Congress wants to 
begin to change the mission in Iraq. Unfortunately, the President 
apparently wants to do more of the same. We disagree on the second 
point of whether the time has come for a change. The question is whose 
view should ultimately prevail. The answer is the will of the American 
people should prevail. They are the ones paying for this war, not only 
with their dollars, they are paying for it by sending their sons and 
daughters to fight, in some cases to be wounded, in some cases to die 
in this war. As they told us loudly and clearly at the ballot box last 
fall, the American people want a change. Provide our troops with the 
support they deserve and provide the American people with the change 
they demand.
  I realize the conventional wisdom around here is the President will 
veto this bill, he will send it back to us, and then we will all get 
serious about hammering something out that can become law.
  With all due respect, Mr. President, this legislation should become 
law. I urge you to drop your veto threat, pick up your pen, and sign 
it.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________