[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14875-14876]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ONLY CONGRESS DECLARES WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the plan that 
has been put forward by the President.

[[Page 14876]]

As you, Mr. Speaker, just noted a few moments ago, it is a small 
portion of a larger and, what I believe to be, fundamentally flawed 
plan.
  I say that for many different reasons, one of which is the simple 
reality that body bags from a far off battle or from a far off war 
don't return to Washington, D.C. They return to congressional districts 
and States across this country. It is for that very reason that the 
Founding Fathers believed so strongly in Congress having the authority, 
and the sole authority, for the declaration of war.
  I mean, I think it is important to look to what James Wilson, who 
happened to be one of the biggest advocates for a strong Presidency, 
said to his own State delegation back in 1787. He said on the 
importance of congressional authority with regard to war:

       This system will not hurry us into war. It is calculated to 
     guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man 
     or a single body of men to involve us in such distress, for 
     the important power of declaring war is vested at the 
     legislative level at large.

  George Washington said this:

       The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in 
     Congress. Therefore, no offensive expedition of importance 
     can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated 
     upon the subject and authorized such a measure.

  James Madison said this:

       The power to declare war, including the power of judging 
     the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the 
     legislature. The Executive has no right in any case to decide 
     the question whether there is or is not cause for declaring 
     war.

  I think our Founding Fathers had it right, and if we move forward 
today without stopping and waiting and insisting upon the President's 
constitutional duty to come before this body and ask for a declaration 
of war, I think we are making a mistake.
  I would say, secondly, that I think we are making a mistake because 
the news of today is that General Dempsey now says if the plan doesn't 
work out, he would in fact recommend American ground troops there in 
this crisis in the Middle East. I think that that is telling. Because 
if you stop and think about it, is America the only group that is 
expected to suffer through the ravages of war with regard to boots on 
the ground in this instant if General Dempsey's call is right?
  Think about this. There have been 6,600 American deaths there in that 
part of the world in recent history. There have been more than 50,000 
soldiers that have returned with life-altering wounds. I mean, their 
lives are changed forever, and yet we can't get a real firm commitment 
out of allies there in the Middle East as to what they will or won't do 
with regard to ground troops.
  So if it is that big a threat, why is it that allies in that part of 
the world are not making real and substantial commitments with regard 
to what they will or won't do with regard to ground troops?
  Thirdly, I would say what we are doing is we are signing up for an 
open-ended commitment, maybe a 5- or a 10- or a 15- or a 20-year 
commitment, without legal authority to do so. The administration is 
resting solely on the 2001 authorizing language, which was to President 
Bush, in the wake of 9/11, for pursuing perpetrators of 9/11.
  And yet in this instance what they are saying is, well, no, no, that 
gives us authority for the next 10, 15, 20 years. That is not the case. 
Congress authorized for that action. I think it is a misreading of the 
law to move forward as they have.
  Finally, I would make this point. The Bible says, ``Be hot, be cold, 
but don't be lukewarm.'' And I think this plan is predicated on 
lukewarm. I have some colleagues who say we need to commit ground 
troops; we need firmer involvement. I have others who say we don't need 
to do anything at all. And we are splitting it right down the middle. 
Let's bomb a bit and let's arm ``moderate rebels'' and we see how that 
works.
  We have a snapshot of how that works because just this spring 1,000 
ISIS soldiers routed two divisions of Iraqis, about 30,000 folks, in no 
time. Mind you, these are the same folks that American taxpayers spent 
$25 billion training and equipping. We equipped about 200,000 of them. 
It has not worked well.
  I think we need to pause, first, for constitutional reasons; second, 
for legal authority reasons; and third, for a flawed strategy that is 
based on lukewarm. We have that chance today, and I would beg of my 
colleagues to do so.

                          ____________________