[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1384-H1385]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545
                         WAR POWERS RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week the House narrowly passed a watered-
down House concurrent resolution originally designed to endorse 
President Clinton's plan to send U.S. troops to Kosovo. A House 
concurrent resolution, whether strong or weak, has no effect of law. It 
is merely a sense of Congress statement.
  If last week's meager debate and vote are construed as merely an 
endorsement, without dissent, of Clinton's policy in Yugoslavia, the 
procedure will prove a net negative. It will not be seen as a 
Congressional challenge to unconstitutional presidential war power. If, 
however, the debate is interpreted as a serious effort to start the 
process to restore Congressional prerogatives, it may yet be seen as a 
small step in the right direction. We cannot know with certainty which 
it will be. That will depend on what Congress does in the future.
  Presently, those of us who argued for Congressional responsibility 
with regards to declaring war and deploying troops cannot be satisfied 
that the trend of the last 50 years has been reversed. Since World War 
II, the war power has fallen into the hands of our presidents, with 
Congress doing little to insist on its own constitutional 
responsibility. From Korea and Vietnam, to Bosnia and Kosovo, we have 
permitted our presidents to ``wag the Congress,'' generating a 
perception that the United States can and should police the world. 
Instead of authority to move troops and fight wars coming from the 
people through a vote of their Congressional representatives, we now 
permit our presidents to cite NATO declarations and U.N. resolutions.
  This is even more exasperating knowing that upon joining both NATO 
and the United Nations it was made explicitly clear that no loss of 
sovereignty would occur and all legislative bodies of member States 
would retain their legal authority to give or deny support for any 
proposed military action.
  Today it is erroneously taken for granted that the President has 
authority to move troops and fight wars without Congressional approval. 
It would be nice to believe that this vote on Kosovo was a serious step 
in the direction of Congress once again reasserting its responsibility 
for committing U.S. troops abroad. But the President has already 
notified Congress that, regardless of our sense of Congress resolution, 
he intends to do what he thinks is right, not what is legal and 
constitutional, only what he decides for himself.
  Even with this watered-down endorsement of troop deployment with 
various conditions listed, the day after the headlines blared ``the 
Congress approves troop deployments to Kosovo.''
  If Congress is serious about this issue, it must do more. First, 
Congress cannot in this instance exert its responsibility through a 
House concurrent resolution. The President can and

[[Page H1385]]

will ignore this token effort. If Congress decides that we should not 
become engaged in the civil war in Serbia, we must deny the funds for 
that purpose. That we can do. Our presidents have assumed the war 
power, but as of yet Congress still controls the purse.
  Any effort on our part to enter a civil war in a country 5,000 miles 
away for the purpose of guaranteeing autonomy and/or a separate state 
against the avowed objections of the leaders of that country involved, 
that is Yugoslavia, can and will lead to a long-term serious problem 
for us.
  Our policy, whether it is with Iraq or Serbia, of demanding that if 
certain actions are not forthcoming, we will unleash massive bombing 
attacks on them, I find reprehensible, immoral, illegal, and 
unconstitutional. We are seen as a world bully, and a growing anti-
American hatred is the result. This policy cannot contribute to long-
term peace. Political instability will result and innocent people will 
suffer. The billions we have spent bombing Iraq, along with sanctions, 
have solidified Saddam Hussein's power, while causing the suffering and 
deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Our policy 
in Kosovo will be no more fruitful.
  The recent flare-up of violence in Serbia has been blamed on United 
States' plan to send troops to the region. The Serbs have expressed 
rage at the possibility that NATO would invade their country with the 
plan to reward the questionable Kosovo Liberation Army. If ever a case 
could be made for the wisdom of non-intervention, it is here. Who wants 
to defend all that the KLA had done and at the same time justify a NATO 
invasion of a sovereign nation for the purpose of supporting secession? 
``This violence is all America's fault,'' one Yugoslavian was quoted as 
saying. And who wants to defend Milosevic?
  Every argument given for our bombing Serbia could be used to support 
the establishment of Kurdistan. Actually a stronger case can be made to 
support an independent Kurdistan since their country was taken from 
them by outsiders. But how would Turkey feel about that? Yet the case 
could be made that the mistreatment of the Kurds by Saddam Hussein and 
others compel us to do something to help, since we are pretending that 
our role is an act as the world's humanitarian policeman.
  Humanitarianism, delivered by a powerful government through threats 
of massive bombing attacks will never be a responsible way to enhance 
peace. It will surely have the opposite effect.
  It was hoped that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 would reign in 
our president's authority to wage war without Congressional approval. 
It has not happened because all subsequent Presidents have essentially 
ignored its mandates. And unfortunately the interpretation since 1973 
has been to give the President greater power to wage war with 
Congressional approval for at least 60 to 90 days as long as he reports 
to the Congress. These reports are rarely made and the assumption has 
been since 1973 that Congress need not participate in any serious 
manner in the decision to send troops.
  It could be argued that this resulted from a confused understanding 
of the War Powers Resolution but more likely it's the result of the 
growing imperial Presidency that has developed with our presidents 
assuming power, not legally theirs, and Congress doing nothing about 
it.
  Power has been gravitating into the hands of our presidents 
throughout this century, both in domestic and foreign affairs. Congress 
has created a maze of federal agencies, placed under the President, 
that have been granted legislative, police, and judicial powers, thus 
creating an entire administrative judicial system outside our legal 
court system where constitutional rights are ignored. Congress is 
responsible for this trend and it's Congress' responsibility to restore 
Constitutional government.
  As more and more power has been granted in international affairs, 
presidents have readily adapted to using Executive Orders, promises and 
quasi-treaties to expand the scope and size of the presidency far above 
anything even the Federalist ever dreamed of.
  We are at a crossroads and if the people and the Congress do not soon 
insist on the reigning in of presidential power, both foreign and 
domestic, individual liberty cannot be preserved.
  Presently, unless the people exert a lot more pressure on the 
Congress to do so, not much will be done. Specifically, Congress needs 
a strong message from the people insisting that the Congress continues 
the debate over Kosovo before an irreversible quagmire develops. The 
President today believes he is free to pursue any policy he wants in 
the Balkans and the Persian Gulf without Congressional approval. It 
shouldn't be that way. It's dangerous politically, military, morally, 
and above all else undermines our entire system of the rule of law.

                          ____________________