[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 82 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 16, 2007

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1585) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, and for 
     other purposes:
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, yesterday, as part of the Defense 
Authorization bill, we voted on an amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio of 
Oregon that would, with limited exceptions, require the President to 
obtain congressional authorization before taking military action 
against Iran. I want to make something crystal clear: I fully support 
the intent of the amendment. However, I opposed the DeFazio Amendment 
for three reasons.
  First by singling out Iran, the amendment created a troubling 
implication that the President could take military action against other 
countries without congressional authorization. For example, there have 
been reports that the Bush Administration has considered military 
action against Syria. The DeFazio Amendment did not mention Syria. Does 
the omission of Syria, or any other country, give the President a green 
light to attack other nations without congressional authorization? 
Essentially, the DeFazio Amendment re-stated what I believe to be the 
powers of the Congress under the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. 
The Executive Branch must respect those powers. It establishes a bad 
precedent for the Congress to pass a DeFazio type amendment every time 
it is concerned the Executive Branch might take military action against 
a particular country in violation of the Constitution and statutory 
law. That would send the wrong message that Congress doesn't care 
whether the Executive abides by the Constitution unless the Congress 
passes a similar amendment in every instance.
  Second, it is difficult to predict every possible contingency when 
formulating legislation regarding the use of military force. If, for 
example, the DeFazio Amendment became the law of the land, and American 
civilians were taken hostage in Iran, the President would be prohibited 
from ordering a military rescue operation unless the Congress first 
passed a resolution. Certainly, that was not the intent of Mr. 
DeFazio's amendment, but that is its effect.
  Finally, the DeFazio Amendment does not address the problem that led 
to the bad decision to go to war in Iraq. Afterall, President Bush 
asked Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq. The problem 
was that Congress mistakenly passed a resolution giving the President 
that authority.
  In conclusion, while I support the spirit and intent of this 
amendment, I think it establishes an unwise precedent, fails to 
consider all the contingencies that might lead to the justifiable use 
of force, and fails to address the issue that led to the war in Iraq.