[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5146-5147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             WAR POWERS ACT

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I very much thank the majority leader for 
allowing this important debate to occur.
  During his campaign, Candidate Barrack Obama said no President should 
unilaterally initiate military conflict without Congressional 
authority. I agree with that statement. It is a very important 
constitutional principle and something that I think deserves debate.
  I think the most important thing we do as representatives is voting 
on whether to go to war. If Congress does not vote to go to war or does 
not vote on the notion of going to war, we would have an unlimited 
Presidency, and this is a very dangerous notion.
  I would take this position no matter what the party affiliation were 
of the President because I believe very strongly in the constitutional 
checks and balances. We will vote today on the President's own words 
verbatim. During the election, the President said: ``The President does 
not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a 
military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual 
or imminent threat to the Nation.''
  Clearly, the circumstances in Libya do not rise to this, and I think 
this vote is incredibly important. Madison wrote that:

       The Constitution supposes what history demonstrates. That 
     the executive is the branch most interested in war and most 
     prone to it. Therefore, the Constitution has with studied 
     care given that power to the legislature.

  ``Don't tread on me'' was a motto and a rallying cry for our Founding 
Fathers. The motto of Congress appears to be: ``Tread on me, please 
tread on me.'' The Congress has become not just a rubber stamp for an 
unlimited Presidency, but, worse, Congress has become a doormat to be 
stepped upon, to be ignored, and basically to be treated as irrelevant.
  Some would say: We had no time. We had to go to war. There was no 
time for debate. When we were attacked in World War II on December 7, 
Pearl Harbor, within 24 hours this body came together and voted to 
declare war on Japan. There is no excuse for the Senate not to vote on 
going to war before we go to war.
  The President had time to go to the United Nations, have a 
discussion, and a vote. The President had time to go to the Arab 
League, have a discussion, and a vote. The President had the time to go 
to NATO. But the President had no time to come to the people's house, 
to the Congress, and ask, as the Constitution dictates, for the 
approval of the American people and for the approval of Congress.
  Why is this important? It is important because when our Nation was 
founded, we were founded as a constitutional Republic. We placed 
limitations not only on the President but on the Congress. We are 
supposed to obey the Constitution. These are important principles and 
we have gone beyond that. We have gotten to the point where my question 
is, Are we even obeying the Constitution in this body?
  This is a sad day. This is a sad day for America. The thing is, we 
need to have checks and balances. Do we want an unlimited Presidency, a 
Presidency that could take us to war anywhere, anytime, without the 
approval of Congress?
  Some have said: We are going to have a vote sometime, sometime in the 
next couple weeks. When we get around to it, we may have a debate about 
Libya. Had the President shown true leadership, the President would 
have, when he called the United Nations, when he called the Arab 
League, when he called NATO, the President would have called the 
leadership of the Senate and the leadership of the House, and we would 
have been here within 24 hours, having what should be the most 
momentous debate this body ever has on sending our young brave men and 
women to war.
  We are currently engaged in two wars, and we are now going to be 
engaged in a third war. The interesting point is, when we went into 
Iraq and Afghanistan, we had votes in this body. President Bush came to 
Congress and there were votes.

[[Page 5147]]

  The War Powers Act--some on the other side say: This is no big deal. 
The President can do whatever he wants as long as he notifies Congress 
within a certain period of time.
  This is not a correct interpretation of the War Powers Act. The War 
Powers Act does say he needs to notify Congress. But the War Powers Act 
also says the President must meet three hurdles before taking our 
troops into harm's way.
  No. 1, there should be a declaration of war or there should be an 
authorization of force from this body or there should be imminent 
danger to the Nation. None of those were adhered to. The law was not 
adhered to.
  Some will say: The War Powers Act, no President recognizes it. Well, 
The War Powers Act is the law of the land, and the President needs to 
respect not only the statutory law of the land but the Constitution. I 
do not think these are trivial questions. But I am bemused, I am 
confused, I do not understand why your representatives are not down 
here debating such a momentous event as going to war.
  I can think of no vote and no debate more important than sending our 
young men and women to war. It should be done reluctantly. We should go 
to war only when threatened as a nation. When engaged in two wars, we 
should debate the prudence of being involved in a third war. These are 
not trivial questions. I am amazed this body does not take the time to 
debate whether we should be in Libya.
  Some have said: We will debate it next week. The problem is, the 
debate should occur before we go to war. At this point, we will have a 
vote. We will have a vote on the President's own words.
  I will yield for a minute or two for a question, if that is OK. I 
yield to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, what we have with the situation with Libya 
presents us with a fundamental question, one we have wrestled with for 
a couple centuries as a nation. The founding era was a time that was 
fraught with wars. It was a time when we learned that executives 
sometimes abuse their power. Sometimes they will take us into wars in 
faraway nations without the support of the people, knowing full well it 
is the sons and the daughters of the people on the ground who are asked 
to make the ultimate sacrifice in those battles.
  We channeled the war power in the Constitution so as to make sure 
these debates would always come to the forefront, that they would 
always be brought up by the elected representatives of the people in 
Congress. For that reason, although we give power to the President to 
be the Commander in Chief in article II of the Constitution, in article 
I of the Constitution, we reserve that power, the power to declare war, 
to Congress.
  This is how we guarantee that the people's voice will be heard and 
that people's sons and their daughters will not be sent off to war 
without some public debate and discussion by those who have been duly 
elected by the people and stand accountable to the people.
  We have, over time, clarified the intent. We have made clear there 
are certain steps that have to be taken. We have also made clear that 
although there is, to be sure, a certain unknown continuum, a continuum 
that can be hard to define in every circumstance, between the 
President's plenary authority as Commander in Chief, on the one hand, 
and Congress's power to declare war on the other, there does come a 
point at which we can recognize that we are at war and that some 
authorization is required by Congress.
  This very body, Congress, has, through the war powers resolution, 
attempted to distill some of these principles. In section 1541 of the 
War Powers Act--it is found at 50 United States Code section 1541--we 
are told there are circumstances, three circumstances to be precise--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to express my 
appreciation to the Senator from Kentucky. He is a gentleman. I know 
how sincere he feels about this issue. I admire him for feeling 
sincerely about issues, as he does on a number of them.
  It has been good for me to get to know him better during the last 4 
or 5 days.
  I ask for the clerk to report the pending business.

                          ____________________