[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2319-E2320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN DECLARING WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 9, 2005

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that we return to the 
framework for declarations of war set out by our Founding Fathers and 
found in the United States Constitution.
  The Iraq War and all the damage it has done and continues to do, is a 
demonstration of what happens when Congress ignores the Constitution 
and the intentions of the Founding Fathers. As Leslie H. Gelb and Anne-
Marie Slaughter point out in their article in the November 8, 2005 
Washington Post ``No More Blank-Check Wars'' ``Most wars overflow with 
mistakes and surprises. Still, in Iraq, much that has gone wrong could 
have been foreseen--and was. . . . Too often our leaders have entered 
wars with unclear and unfixed aims, tossing away American lives, power 
and credibility before figuring out what they were doing and what could 
be done. Congress saw the problem after the Vietnam War and tried to 
fix it with the War Powers Act. It states that troops sent into combat 
by the President must be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress 
approves an extension. But Presidents from Nixon on never recognized 
the validity of this legislation against their powers as commander in 
chief. Nor did Congress ever assert its rights and take political 
responsibility. Since the Korean War, the process has consisted of at 
most a Congressional resolution, a few serious speeches and 
authorization for the President to do whatever he wants. Odds are 
against changing these `political realities.' But, impaled as we are on 
costs and carelessness of so many of our recent wars, it is worth 
trying to find a better way.''
  As it happens, Gelb and Slaughter point out: the answer is in the 
Constitution. The Founding Fathers understood that sending Americans to 
war required careful reflection and vigorous debate. The answer 
survives in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which give 
Congress--and only Congress--the power to declare war. The authors 
suggest that power needs to be reestablished and reinforced by new 
legislation. The new legislation would require a declaration of war 
from Congress in advance of any commitment of troops. Requiring a 
declaration by Congress would require congress to debate the issues, 
analyze the threat, and consider the costs of a war. In the case of the 
September 11, 2001 attacks, the President would retain his power to 
repel the attack and strike back without a Congressional declaration. 
But if he went to Afghanistan and planned to keep troops there, topple 
the government and transform the country, he would need a Congressional 
declaration. Without the declaration, he would have no funding for 
nation building. These are ideas that need discussion. These ideas come 
from the document we all swear an oath to uphold: the Constitution of 
the United States.
  In my view, a patriot is a person who remembers he must uphold and 
defend the Constitution, not a political party or a President.

                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 8, 2005]

                        No More Blank-Check Wars

              (By Leslie H. Gelb and Anne-Marie Slaughter)

       Most wars overflow with mistakes and surprises. Still, in 
     Iraq, much that has gone wrong could have been foreseen--and 
     was. For example, most experts knew that 100,000 U.S. troops 
     couldn't begin to provide essential security and that Iraqi 
     oil revenue wouldn't dent war costs. But none of this was 
     nailed down beforehand in any disciplined review.
       And Iraq, whether justified or not, is only the latest in a 
     long line of ill-considered and ill-planned U.S. military 
     adventures. Time and again in recent decades the United 
     States has made military commitments after little real 
     debate, with hazy goals and no appetite for the inevitable 
     setbacks. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson plunged us

[[Page E2320]]

     into the Vietnam War with little sense of the region's 
     history or culture. Ronald Reagan dispatched Marines to 
     Lebanon, saying that stability there was a ``vital 
     interest,'' only to yank them out 16 months later after a 
     deadly terrorist attack on Marine barracks. Bill Clinton, 
     having inherited a mission in Somalia to feed the starving, 
     ended up hunting tribal leaders and trying to build a nation.
       Too often our leaders have entered wars with unclear and 
     unfixed aims, tossing away American lives, power and 
     credibility before figuring out what they were doing and what 
     could be done. Congress saw the problem after the Vietnam War 
     and tried to fix it with the War Powers Act. It states that 
     troops sent into combat by the president must be withdrawn 
     within 60 days unless Congress approves an extension. But 
     presidents from Richard Nixon on never recognized the 
     validity of this legislation against their powers as 
     commander in chief. Nor did Congress ever assert its rights 
     and take political responsibility. Since the Korean War, the 
     process has consisted at most of a presidential request for a 
     congressional resolution, a few serious speeches and 
     authorization for the president to do whatever he wants. Odds 
     are against changing these ``political realities.'' But 
     impaled as we are on the costs and carelessness of so many of 
     our recent wars, it is worth trying to find a better way.
       As often happens, an answer can be found with the Founding 
     Fathers and the Constitution. They could not have foreseen 
     the present age of nuclear missiles and cataclysmic 
     terrorism. But they understood political accountability, and 
     they knew that sending Americans to war required careful 
     reflection and vigorous debate. Their answer survives in 
     Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, which gives 
     Congress--and only Congress--the power to declare war. That 
     power, exercised only a few times in our history, and not at 
     all since World War II, needs to be reestablished and 
     reinforced by new legislation. This legislation would fix 
     guidelines for exercising the provision jointly between the 
     White House and Congress. It would restore the Framers' 
     intent by requiring a congressional declaration of war in 
     advance of any commitment of troops that promises sustained 
     combat.
       Requiring Congress to declare war, rather than just approve 
     or authorize the president's decision to take troops into 
     combat, would make it much harder for Congress to duck its 
     responsibilities. The president would be required to give 
     Congress an analysis of the threat, specific war aims with 
     their rationale and feasibility, general strategy and 
     potential costs. Congress would hold hearings, examine the 
     information and conclude with a full floor debate and solemn 
     vote.
       In case of a sudden attack on the United States or 
     Americans abroad, the president would retain his power to 
     repel that attack and strike back without a congressional 
     declaration. But any sustained operations would trigger the 
     declaration process. In other words, the president could send 
     troops into Afghanistan to hunt down al Qaeda and punish the 
     Taliban in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. But if he 
     planned to keep the troops there to topple the government and 
     transform the country, he would need a congressional 
     declaration. Without one, funding would be restricted to 
     bringing the troops home soon and safely.
       This declaration process should appeal to conservatives and 
     even neocons. It meets their valid concern that the United 
     States often loses diplomatic showdowns and wars not on the 
     battlefield but at home. It adds credibility to presidential 
     threats and staying power to our military commitments. 
     Binding Congress far more closely to war, for instance, might 
     have convinced Saddam Hussein of Washington's resolve to 
     fight him in both gulf wars; today it would help convince 
     insurgents in Iraq of America's long-term commitment to make 
     Iraq secure. Liberals and moderates, always rightly 
     complaining about a rush to war, would welcome the restored 
     declaration. Not least, the attractiveness of this approach 
     would be aided by the political power of the Constitution 
     itself.
       Nor would the process proposed here diminish a president's 
     leadership or stature as commander in chief as he makes his 
     case to Congress. If, even with these advantages, his 
     arguments fail, then the case cannot be very compelling.
       Today Congress deliberates on transportation bills more 
     carefully than it does on war resolutions. Our Founding 
     Fathers wanted the declaration of war to concentrate minds. 
     Returning to the Constitution's text and making it work 
     through legislation requiring joint deliberate action may be 
     the only way to give the decision to make war the care it 
     deserves.
    




                          ____________________