[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7009-H7010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WITH REGARDS TO WAR: IS CONGRESS RELEVANT?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the last time Congress declared war was on
December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal
declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished
with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any
nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear
declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in 3\1/2\
years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the
declaration of war against Japan 3 days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut
victory was achieved against Japan.
Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous
occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with
essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as
chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the
Persian Gulf war that started in 1990.
The process for our entering war the past 57 years and the
inconclusive results of each war since that time are obviously related
to Congress' abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to
it by article I section 8 of the Constitution.
Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these
years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near
majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the States
as an amendment required by the Constitution.
Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough
decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this
monumental decisionmaking power regarding war to the President. Once
again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut
decision and commitment by the people through their Representatives are
not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be
required to follow the confusing dictates of the U.N., since that is
where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from--rather than
from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.
Controversial language is being highly debated in an effort to
satisfy political constituencies and for Congress to avoid
responsibility of whether to go to war. So far the proposed resolution
never mentions war, only empowering the President to use force at his
will to bring about peace. Rather strange language indeed!
A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the
focus and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of
war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the
Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that
if the major decision is left to the President and a poor results
occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the
transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers
Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.
However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and
deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the U.N. and all
our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to
declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive
branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the U.N.,
an unelected international government. No wonder the language of the
resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting
this war by citing U.N. resolutions.
In order to get more of what we want from the United Nations, we
rejoined UNESCO, which Ronald Reagan had bravely gotten us out of, and
promised millions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer support to run this
international agency started by Sir Julian Huxley. In addition, we read
of promises by our administration that one we control Iraqi oil, it
will be available for allies like France and Russia, who have been
reluctant to join our efforts.
What a difference from the days when a declaration of war was clean
and precise and accomplished by a responsible Congress and an informed
people.
A great irony of all this is that the United Nations Charter doesn't
permit declaring war, especially against a nation that has been in a
state of peace for 12 years. The U.N. can only declare peace. Remember,
it wasn't a war in Korea; it was only a police action to bring about
peace. But at least in Korea and Vietnam, there was fighting going on,
so it was a bit easier to stretch the language than it is today
regarding Iraq. Since Iraq doesn't even have an Air Force or a Navy, is
incapable of waging a war, and remains defenseless against the
overwhelming powers of the United States and the British, it's
difficult to claim that we're going into Iraq to restore peace.
History will eventually show that if we launch this attack--just as
our sanctions already have--the real victims will be the innocent Iraqi
civilians who despise Saddam Hussein and are terrified of the coming
bombs that will destroy their cities.
The greatest beneficiaries of the attack may well be Osama bin Ladin
and the al Qaeda.
[[Page H7010]]
Some in the media have already suggested that the al Qaeda may be
encouraging the whole event. Some unintended consequences do occur,
what will come from this attack is still entirely unknown.
It's a well-known fact that the al Qaeda are not allies of Saddam
Hussein and despise the secularization and partial westernization of
Iraqi culture. They would welcome the chaos that's about to come. This
will give them a chance to influence post-Saddam-Hussein Iraq. The
attack, many believe, will confirm to the Arab world that indeed the
Christian West has once again attacked the Muslim East, providing
radical fundamentalists a tremendous boost for recruitment.
An up or down vote on declaring war against Iraq would not pass the
Congress, and the President has no intention of asking for it. This is
unfortunate, because if the process were carried out in a
constitutional fashion, the American people and the U.S. Congress would
vote No on assuming responsibility for this war.
Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use
force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the U.N. Charter, which
replaces article I, section 8 war power provision, is about as close to
1984 ``newspeak'' that we will ever get in the real world.
Not only is it sad that we have gone so far astray from our
Constitution, but it's also dangerous for world peace and threatens our
liberties here at home.
____________________