[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 75 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E988]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 24, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1540) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
     construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes:

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, this will be the first time that I have 
voted against a Defense Authorization Act and I do so with great 
reluctance. But I also do so with confidence that it is the right 
decision.
  Section 1034 of this bill gives this President and all future 
Presidents vastly expanded authority to take America to war without 
further congressional action. It gives the Executive a virtual blank 
check by authorizing the President to deploy an unlimited number of 
troops into a war of unlimited duration based on ill-defined standards. 
The language in 1034 represents a total abdication of congressional 
responsibility under the Constitution.
  The President already has broad authority to use military force 
against al Qaeda and Taliban forces pursuant to the Authorization of 
the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that was adopted in 2001. That 
provision states:

       That the President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or 
     aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 
     2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to 
     prevent any future acts of international terrorism against 
     the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

  This bill replaces the existing AUMF with a new provision that 
provides the President with vast new war-making authority. Under the 
umbrella of the war against terrorism, it expands the existing broad 
authority in at least three ways:


                De-links use of force from 9/11 attacks

  The original language gave the President the authority to use 
military force against any entities he determined to be connected to 
the attacks of September 11, 2001 or any nation, organization or 
persons he determined harbored such entities. The new language expands 
the authority to target entities regardless of their connection to the 
September 11 attacks.


           Permits attacks on undefined ``associated forces''

  The original language authorized all necessary force against the 
entities responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but did not provide the 
authority to wage war against undetermined ``associated forces.'' The 
term ``associated forces'' is totally undefined and would allow any 
President to apply that term with great elasticity to go to war without 
congressional approval in any number of situations.


 Allows use of force against entities that ``support'' the Taliban, al 
                     Qaeda or ``associated forces''

  The original language allowed the use of force against entities that 
``harbored'' the terrorist groups that perpetuated the attacks of
9/11. The new language allows the President to wage war, without 
additional congressional consent, against any entities that 
substantially support the Taliban, al Qaeda or ``associated forces.'' 
This is a much weaker standard than the existing requirement.
  Had the Congress included this language in the 2001 AUMF, President 
Bush could have sent American troops into Iraq without seeking a 
separate resolution to use force. This language authorizes the 
Executive to launch military action against an entity that had nothing 
to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 so long as the President 
determines that a country or organization is substantially supporting 
the Taliban, al Qaeda or ``associated forces.'' The Bush administration 
claimed that the regime of Saddam Hussein was allowing Iraqi territory 
to be used to train al Qaeda elements.
  While I believe the Congress made a mistake in voting to authorize 
President Bush to go to war in Iraq, at least Congress debated and 
voted on the decision. With this new provision in place, no such vote 
would have been required.
  Under the Constitution, the President of the United States already 
has relatively broad powers to use military force as Commander in 
Chief. In addition, the existing Authorization of the Use of Military 
Force provides the President with additional authority to take military 
action in a wide array of situations without seeking additional 
congressional approval or a declaration of war. It is a reckless 
surrender of congressional responsibility for the Congress to write 
this new open-ended blank check for the use of military force. Not even 
the Executive has been brazen enough to request this new broad grant of 
authority.
  The language in Section 1034 is sloppy, ill-considered and poorly 
conceived. No hearings were held to consider its full ramifications. 
This Congress should be ashamed of itself for its careless and cavalier 
approach to a question of such grave national significance.
  I urge the Senate and the President to reject this provision and hope 
to have an opportunity to vote for a revised Defense Authorization Act 
that doesn't undermine the constitutional responsibilities of the 
Congress.

                          ____________________