[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S1067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              S.J. RES. 68

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, we voted on an amendment to 
S.J. Res. 68 that was offered by the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Risch. That amendment consisted of one sentence, as 
follows: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take 
actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions, 
citizens, servicemembers and diplomats from attack.''
  On its face, the Risch amendment seems reasonable. The President does 
have a responsibility to defend the country. But, as is so often the 
case, the devil is in the details, or the absence of details, and when 
it involves engaging U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities, we should pay 
particularly close attention. I was among those who opposed the 
amendment and I want to explain why.
  First, it is important to note that the underlying resolution already 
states that ``[nothing] in this section shall be construed to prevent 
the United States from defending itself from imminent attack.'' So 
there is no question about the President's authority to defend the 
country. But the central purpose of the resolution is to give meaning 
to the Congress's constitutional authority--the Congress's sole power--
to declare war. For far too long this body has surrendered that duty to 
the executive branch.
  In 2002, when the Senate considered whether or not to authorize 
President George W. Bush to invade Iraq, many in this body argued that 
providing the President with that authority was needed to convince 
Saddam Hussein to back down. I, instead, saw it as Congress abdicating 
its constitutional duty by providing the President with open-ended 
authority to use military force against Iraq. For that reason, among 
others, I voted no.
  In fact, my worst fears were realized. Not only was the justification 
for that war based on lies, but thousands of Americans died, trillions 
of dollars were wasted that could have been used to fix what's broken 
in this country, and the American people are no safer. Today that 
authority is being used in ways that no one envisioned or intended to 
justify an attack against another country, Iran, nearly two decades 
later.
  We should learn from that costly mistake. The obvious implication of 
the Risch amendment is that any President is authorized, and has an 
affirmative responsibility, to use military force at anytime, anywhere, 
indefinitely, to prevent an unspecified attack that might occur 
sometime in the future. There is no requirement that it be 
``imminent''. There is no requirement that such an attack be anything 
other than speculative or imagined.
  Given the way this and past administrations have expansively 
interpreted past authorizations for the use of force, the Risch 
amendment could be interpreted to further erode Congress's ability to 
prevent a President from unilaterally sending U.S. forces into 
hostilities without prior consultation with, or further authorization 
from, the Congress. Such an endorsement--even if unintended--of 
unchecked Executive power undermines the purpose of the underlying 
joint resolution, and it makes a mockery of the Congress's sole power 
to declare war. That is not something any of us should condone.

                          ____________________