Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007

Floor Speech

PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - October 25, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

IRAN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the bill before us is a very important bill for our country. It is the reauthorization of the Amtrak operation which serves Illinois and most of our Nation very well. It is one of the most successful modes of transportation in terms of growth in our country.

In the last year the ridership on Amtrak in Illinois has doubled. Doubled. That is an indication of a commitment, not only from the State of Illinois to make that happen, but also with the price of gasoline a lot of people are discovering the train again. They are back on those trains traveling between St. Louis and Chicago, Quincy and Chicago, Carbondale and Chicago, students, families, business people. That is a good thing.

I salute Senators Lautenberg and Lott for bringing this authorization bill to the floor. I definitely want it to pass as quickly as possible. I hope we will show the support for Amtrak which has been lacking for some time in the past but in the future needs to be there.

I want to discuss an amendment which I am going to offer which has nothing to do with Amtrak, and perhaps it will not be allowed at this moment in time in the debate. But I will offer it because I think it is timely, and I offer it because if it is not allowed on this bill at this time, I hope we will have a chance to bring it up in the very near future.

I can recall a little over 5 years ago, on the floor of the Senate, when we debated the invasion of Iraq. Those votes are historic and very personal. Members who were called on to make those decisions will never forget the anguish they face when they have to decide whether to send our Nation to war. We know it is the most important vote that can be cast. We know even under the best of circumstances Americans will die if we go to war. We hope our enemy will be vanquished, but we know that innocent people will also die.

A little over 5 years ago, that decision was made on the floor of the Senate to go forward with the invasion of Iraq. There were many of us who had serious misgivings about that decision. I was one of 23 Senators, 22 on the Democratic side, 1 on the Republican side, who voted against the authorization of military force.

I felt the President had not made a strong case for that invasion. I felt he did not have a sound plan for an invasion and a victory. I felt the American people had been misled; misled about Saddam Hussein, misled about weapons of mass destruction, misled about the impact of this almost unilateral invasion by the United States into Iraq.

Well, here we are in the fifth year of the war, over 3,800 Americans have been killed, 30,000 injured, more than 10,000 seriously injured, with amputations and serious burns, traumatic brain injury. With the President's latest request, the spending on the war in Iraq will reach three-quarters of a trillion dollars. In 5 years, three-quarters of a trillion dollars, $750 billion; money, which if spent in the United States on Amtrak, on medical research, on health care, on education, would have had a dramatic, historic impact, a positive impact on America.

But, no, it was spent in the course of a war that has no end in sight. Our men and women in uniform have shown extraordinary bravery and courage under amazing, trying circumstances in the civil war we never bargained for.

When we went to war in Iraq, the President said the reasons were clear: first, depose Saddam Hussein; second, to rid our world of his weapons of mass destruction; and, third, to protect threats against America's security.

Here we are almost 5 years later with Saddam Hussein gone, no weapons of mass destruction, and the only threat to America's security being the threat to our own soldiers and occupational forces in Iraq.

The debate seems to have moved from Iraq to another neighboring country, at least in the eyes of the White House, that is, the country of Iran. We continue to hear the most bellicose, warlike statements coming from the President and Vice President about the potential for the invasion of Iran.

Make no mistake, Iran cannot be ignored. It has fostered a foreign policy that supports some of the worst actors in the Middle East, from Hezbollah to Hamas. It is pursuing a nuclear program despite international condemnation. It has threatened to wipe our strong ally Israel off the map. There is plenty of evidence to suggest Iran is complicit in supplying training and materials for attacks against our soldiers in Iraq.

Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and I have introduced bipartisan legislation, the Iran Counterproliferation Act of 2007. It would tighten sanctions against Iran if it does not halt its nuclear programs. It stops short, clearly stops short, of calling for military action. That is the reason I come today.

I continue to be concerned that this administration is going to move too far, too fast, toward military action against Iran. The positioning of some of our battle forces, the statements from Vice President Cheney and President Bush trouble me. They trouble me because in August the McClatchy Newspapers reported that the Vice President proposed U.S. air strikes inside Iran. Earlier this month, President Bush said if we were interested in avoiding World War III--these are his words, World War III--we ought to be concerned about preventing Iran from gaining the knowledge needed to produce nuclear weapons.

This week, Vice President Cheney said, during an event in Lynchburg, Virginia, that the United States and others are ``prepared to impose serious consequences'' on Iran. This troubles me. If this administration believes it has some authority from Congress for the invasion of Iran, I challenge them to show me what that authority is. They certainly did not receive that authority with their authorization to use military force in Iraq. That was never even considered. There has been no action I am aware of since which would given them that authority.

If they think they have some inherent power to launch an invasion of another country such as Iran, they are clearly wrong, wrong because of this document, our Constitution. The Constitution makes clear in article I, section 8, that the power to declare war is vested in the American people through their elected representatives in Congress, in the House and in the Senate.

I come to the floor today to remind not only my colleagues but the administration that they have solemn constitutional responsibilities. Before they initiate any offensive action in Iran, they have to come to the Congress for the authority to do so. To do otherwise is, in my mind, not only reckless but clearly unconstitutional.

I want to take a moment to read this resolution I have proposed because it is very short. It is two sentences:

The Senate hereby affirms that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States vests in Congress all power to declare war.

And, paragraph 2:

Any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.

The wording is concise and limited, and I hope makes a clear point. That point is, the Constitution counts. This President, no President, has the authority for unilateral invasion of a country. Every President has the power to defend America and Americans. But to initiate an invasion of Iran at this point in our history would be not only a terrible foreign policy mistake, but violate the constitutional processes we have set in place, a Constitution we have all sworn to uphold.

I understand that this bill, this Amtrak authorization bill, is hardly a bill to debate the constitutional authority to go to war or foreign policy on Iran, but I continue to be troubled day in and day out with statements by the President and Vice President to suggest that we are somehow preparing in any way, shape, or form for offensive military action in Iran.

I know my time is limited. I thank the sponsor of the legislation that is now pending, and the Republican minority leader on this committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so this amendment be might be called up, with the understanding that it is not likely to be allowed, but to let my colleagues know I am going to introduce this as separate legislation. I hope they will join me in cosponsoring it and join me as well in finding the first available venue and forum to raise this important constitutional issue.

Source