OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BILL DELAHUNT
At the March 13, 2008, hearing titled:
“War Powers for the 21st
Century: The Congressional Perspective”
The Subcommittee will come to
order.
Today we begin a series of
hearings on what I believe is one of the most fundamental of the issues that
come before us, the first branch of Government under the Constitution -- the decision
to send the armed forces of the
Making such a decision is an
acknowledgment that the international framework for cooperation and diplomacy –
which the
Making such a decision means
that we are compelled to use violence for our survival and way of life.
And that we must prepare
ourselves for the eventual human losses and other consequences that war entails
– including the inevitable strain on our economy that results from devoting our
resources to war rather than to our collective prosperity.
This is truly a momentous decision
that is beyond party – and must be above partisanship.
* * *
A decision to go to war should
reflect the collective judgment of both the President and the Congress. Our Founding Fathers crafted a Constitution
that gives the Commander in Chief the power to conduct wars, but reserves to Congress
the power to declare war.
Their view was that the
judgment of many in a matter of such profound consequence is preferable to the possible
whim of a single individual. I believe they were right.
Since the end of World War
II, this balance has become skewed. It
has been more than 60 years since the
Restoring the balance envisioned
by the Founders will – most likely – require not only legislative changes – but
also a recognition of the wisdom of the Founders – as well as a reinvigorated
awareness of our constitutional responsibility on the decision to use military
force.
* * *
The confluence of the war in
However, Congress since then has
not only abdicated its constitutional responsibility, but also failed to insist
on compliance with the War Powers legislation that it had enacted by an
overwhelming majority.
The truth is that the War
Powers Resolution has never really worked.
In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, there have
been over 120 presidential filings “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution,
but only one that started the 60-day clock for congressional approval “pursuant
to” it – and in at least a dozen other cases, combat took place with no
notification whatsoever.
Now we find ourselves at another
moment in time – with another war, and another president – and another effort
to usurp congressional constitutional authority.
At this very moment, the
Administration has claimed that upon the expiration of the United Nations
mandate that lapses on December 31, 2008 – the current legal basis for our
presence there – American military forces can continue to engage in combat
without returning to Congress to secure new authority. In large measure, they
base this position on the 2002 Congressional resolution that authorized the use
of force to remove the threat posed by the government of Saddam Hussein.
My comment then – which I
will repeat now – is that this patently absurd interpretation of the 2002
authorization has no basis in fact, and is an affront to the constitutional
role of Congress. Later today I will be
introducing legislation with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro that calls for the extension
of the U.N. mandate – and requires that any agreement authorizing
Therefore, this argument
about congressional and executive war powers is not academic, but very real.
And I would submit that, now more than ever, is that moment in history to
engage on this issue.
Let me now turn to my friend
and ranking member, the distinguished and open-minded gentleman from
Ms. Dugan, given the superior
resources at the disposal of the majority, you have been often out-numbered this
past year, but never out-witted. On
behalf of the members and staff of the Subcommittee, thank you, Phaedra, for
your service to the Congress. We will
miss you.
* * * *
Thank you Mr.
Rohrabacher.
I want to welcome our guest,
my good friend Congressman Walter Jones of
Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Mr. Jones will be testifying
before us today on the second panel on his legislation to replace the War
Powers Resolution, but I wonder if he has any remarks that he would like to
make at this time prior to the testimony of this panel?
* * *
Now let us turn to our first
panel. For today’s hearing, we are
hoping to benefit from the expertise of former Members of Congress and former staff. Future hearings will bring to bear the
expertise of constitutional scholars and former executive branch leaders.
We are honored to have with
us today our former colleagues David Skaggs and Mickey Edwards, the two chairs
of the War Powers Commission of the Constitution Project, whose thoughtful and
provocative report members of the Subcommittee will find in their packets. After distinguished congressional careers,
they evolved to a much higher life form – as professors, at the
We are also pleased to have with
us Steve Rademaker, whose long career in government includes service as counsel
to this Committee, in the reign of Chairman Ben Gilman, and appointment as
Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for arms control matters. Now the Senior Counsel at Barbour, Griffith,
and Rogers, Mr. Rademaker continues to serve as the
Gentleman, thank you for
coming, and please, provide us a roadmap for our consideration of this
important issue. Let’s start with
Representative Skaggs and take it in turn.
* * *
INTRODUCTION OF THE HONORABLE WALTER JONES
Having heard a great deal
about the problem of the war powers, we now are honored to have before us on
this panel someone who has taken the time and made the effort to offer us a
solution, my dear friend and someone I consider to be the conscience of the
Congress, Representative Walter Jones.
Now Mr. Jones, as a
Republican from usually Red North Carolina and I, as a Democrat from eternally
Blue Massachusetts, don’t often find ourselves voting together. Not only do we line up on opposite sides for
procedural votes based on party, but it would hard to find two members of the
House who are farther apart on the issues.
Walter
gets a 100 percent score for his voting record from the National Right to Life
Committee, and I get a zero. Then he
gets the zero from a pro-United Nations group, the Campaign for UN Reform, and
I get the 100. The Christian Coalition
gives him another 100, but says that I only vote for their position seven
percent of the time. A neoconservative
foreign policy think-tank, the Center for Security Policy, gives him 76
percent, and me 15 percent. The National
Rifle Association gives him an A, and gives me an F. You get the picture.
But
we have finally found something on which we can agree: Mr. Jones’ proposed
Constitutional War Powers Resolution, which modernizes the existing -- and
barely functional -- 1973 War Powers Resolution. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this
important legislation, and I look forward to convincing all the members of the
Subcommittee to do the same.
Congressman
Jones is to be commended for bringing this important proposal to our attention,
and we hope to hear from him why he became seized with this issue, and the
primary ways in which his legislation differs from the current War Powers
Resolution. While we are not marking up
this legislation today, or even debating its finer points as we will when we
prepare to consider it in Committee, I am pleased that we will have this
opportunity to become familiar with it as a vehicle for discussion of the war
powers issue. Walter, please proceed.
* * *