[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H1022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           WAR POWER AUTHORITY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the President has stated that should a peace 
treaty be signed between Serbia and Kosovo he plans to send in at least 
4,000 American soldiers as part of a NATO peacekeeping force.
  We, the Congress, have been informed through a public statement by 
the President that troops will be sent. We have not been asked to act 
in a constitutional fashion to grant the President permission to act. 
He is not coming to us to fully explain his intentions. The President 
is making a public statement as to his intentions and we are expected 
to acquiesce, to go along with the funding, and not even debate the 
issue, just as we are doing in Iraq.
  That is not a proper constitutional procedure and it should be 
condemned. Silence in the past, while accommodating our Presidents in 
all forms of foreign adventurism from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and 
Bosnia, should not be the standard the Congress follows.
  The Constitution is clear: Our Presidents, from Washington to 
Roosevelt, all knew that initiating war was clearly the prerogative of 
the Congress, but our memories are flawed and our reading of the law is 
careless. The President should not be telling us what he plans to do, 
he should be giving us information and asking our advice. We are 
responsible for the safety of our troops, how taxpayers' dollars are 
spent, the security of our Nation, and especially the process whereby 
our Nation commits itself to war.
  Citing NATO agreements or U.N. resolutions as authority for moving 
troops into war zones should alert us all to the degree to which the 
rule of law has been undermined. The President has no war power, only 
the Congress has that. When one person can initiate war, by its 
definition, a republic no longer exists.
  The war power, taken from the Congress 50 years ago, must be 
restored. If not, the conclusion must be that the Constitution of the 
United States can and has been amended by presidential fiat or treaty, 
both excluding the House of Representatives from performing its duty to 
the American people in preventing casual and illegal wars.
  Some claim that the Kosovo involvement must be clarified as to where 
the money will come to finance it, the surplus or Social Security. This 
misses the point. We have and should exert the power of the purse, but 
a political argument over surpluses versus Social Security is hardly 
the issue.
  Others have said that support should be withheld until an exit 
strategy is clearly laid out. But the debate should not be over the 
exit strategy. It is the entry process that counts.
  The war powers process was set early on by our Presidents in dealing 
with the North African pirates in the early 19th century. Jefferson and 
Madison, on no less than 10 occasions, got Congress to pass legislation 
endorsing each military step taken. It has clearly been since World War 
II that our Presidents have assumed power not granted to them by the 
Constitution, and Congress has been negligent in doing little to stop 
this usurpation.
  In the case of Kosovo, no troops should be sent without the consent 
of Congress. Vague discussion about whether or not the money will come 
out of Social Security or the budget surplus or call for an exit 
strategy will not suffice. If the war power is taken from the President 
and returned to the Congress, we would then automatically know the 
funds would have to be appropriated and the exit strategy would be 
easy: when we win the war.
  Vague police actions authorized by the United Nations or NATO, and 
implemented by the President without congressional approval, invites 
disasters with perpetual foreign military entanglements. The concept of 
national sovereignty and the rule of law must be respected or there is 
no purpose for the Constitution.

                          ____________________