[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[House]
[Page H7623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESS AND THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, later today we are likely to see
bipartisan support for an amendment to authorize the Secretaries of
Defense and State to provide limited assistance to properly vetted
factions within the Syrian opposition as part of the broader effort to
``degrade, and ultimately destroy'' the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant. The President specifically asked Congress to provide these
authorities, and I somewhat reluctantly will agree to support it.
But I want to add a caution, that this action should not be
interpreted as granting congressional authorization for the broader use
of military force to combat the growing threat posed by ISIL. Quite the
contrary, the amendment specifically prohibits the introduction of U.S.
Armed Forces into hostilities absent such explicit authorization.
Now, the President asserts he already has the authority to confront
ISIL. In his most recent notification to Congress, he cites the
executive's constitutional authority ``to conduct U.S. foreign
relations and as Commander in Chief . . .'' While this issue has been
the subject of long-simmering debate between our branches and among
historians and scholars, I would modestly note that the Constitution
explicitly grants to Congress, and only to Congress, the power to
declare war. If there are inherent unenumerated powers in the role of
Commander in Chief, most surely logic dictates there are similar
inherent, unenumerated powers Congress is vested in with our role to
declare war.
Let us make no mistake, we are confronting here on this issue a
matter of war and peace. Yet, in the same breath we are discussing the
danger, we are preparing to shutter Congress for another 7 weeks until
after the election.
The President said he welcomes congressional support for this effort
to show the world we are ``united in confronting this danger.'' I am
glad he welcomes congressional input, but I, for one, believe the
President actually needs specific congressional authority, whether he
wants it or not, for what he himself acknowledges will be a prolonged
campaign to eradicate the cancer-like ISIL. Anything short of that is
an abrogation of our sworn duty to defend and uphold the Constitution
of the United States.
This isn't President Obama trampling on the Constitution. This is
Congress, in a long 60-year history, of winking and blinking about our
responsibility because we don't want to bear it. But on matters of war
and peace, we either live up to our constitutional responsibility,
which is quite clear, or we go on a 7-week recess.
My colleagues know there are historical cases in which congressional
acquiescence has been construed to confer support or authorization
where none has been given. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution is certainly a
case in point. It led to a prolonged war and 55,000 U.S. deaths.
The 93rd Congress adopted the War Powers Resolution to reassert
Congress' role after both Korea and Vietnam. The War Powers Resolution
requires the President to consult with Congress prior to introducing
American forces into hostilities.
The administration has recently argued that the aerial strikes do not
constitute hostilities because they don't involve sustained fighting.
But again, out of the President's own words, he said last week this
would be ``a comprehensive and sustained effort.'' That doesn't sound
like a temporary action by the Commander in Chief.
And to put an even finer point on the issue, I remind my colleagues
of H. Con. Res. 105, which was adopted in July, that prohibits the
President from deploying or maintaining U.S. Armed Forces in a
sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization.
I agree with the President when he said we are strongest as a Nation
when the President and Congress work together. On the most important
issue we ever vote on, war and peace, we must come together, and this
branch must live up to its constitutional responsibility at long last.
____________________