[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 14874]
[From the U.S. 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.

                          ____________________