[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.

                          ____________________