OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BILL DELAHUNT
At a hearing of the Subcommittee on International
Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight titled:
WAR POWERS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH PERSPECTIVE
April 24, 2008
The Subcommittee will come to
order.
Today we continue our series
of hearings on perhaps the most important duty of any government -- the duty to
make a sound decision when it sends its young men and women to kill and be
killed in pursuit of the national interest.
This topic has come to be
known simply as: “the War Powers.”
In our first hearing in March
we took testimony from current and former Members of Congress. In our second hearing -- earlier this month
-- we heard from a panel of pre-eminent constitutional scholars.
Today, as we consider the
perspective of the Executive Branch, we will hear from witnesses with
tremendous experience in the War Powers question at both ends of
Before I introduce today’s
witnesses, I would like to pause and take stock of where the Subcommittee is in
its consideration of the War Powers, and why.
“Where” we are is right in
the middle of a careful review of the status of the current law of the land --
a law whose intent was to establish a regular process for making the decision
about going to war -- the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
From our witnesses, the
Subcommittee has heard insightful arguments both favoring and opposing the War
Powers Resolution. We also asked them to
comment on proposed changes to the procedures for congressional deliberation
that the Resolution established -- such as those contained in the
Constitutional War Powers Act authored by Congressman Walter Jones.
Our intent is to review all
the testimony, and all the suggestions that have been made. And then, at some time this summer -- most
likely after a final, wrap-up hearing -- I hope to return to the full Foreign
Affairs Committee with a revised version of the Jones bill that takes full
advantage of what we have learned through these hearings.
So, that is the “where” – and
the “why” can be explained with just two words:
The Vietnam War divided the
country -- and precipitated a review of the constitutional roles of the
Congress and the Executive Branch. That
review resulted in the enactment of the War Powers Resolution.
Today we find ourselves in a
similar situation because of the war in
And the person who is forcing
the re-thinking is a Member of the House who is among the respected -- across
party lines -- for honesty, for dedication to the well-being of American
troops, and for good old political courage.
And that is our friend, Walter Jones Jr., of
I thank the gentleman for his
dedication to the issue -- as witnessed by his drafting of House Joint
Resolution 53, the Constitutional War Powers Act, and by his attendance at all
of our hearings. And I ask unanimous
consent that he be considered a Member of this subcommittee today for purposes
of receiving testimony.
Hearing no objection, it is
so ordered.
At the last War Powers
hearing, I asked:
Do
we need a change in the congressional culture, so that more Members
become convinced of their constitutional obligation to be partners with the
President in the most crucial of all national decisions -- the decision to go
to war?
Or
do we need a change in the process by which we ensure that Congress
meets its constitutional responsibilities?
For today’s hearing, I would
like to rephrase that question just slightly:
Do
we need a change in the executive branch culture, so that Presidents
become convinced of their constitutional obligation to be partners with the
Congress in the most crucial of all national decisions -- the decision to go to
war?
Or
do we need a change in the process by which we ensure that the President
meets his or her Constitutional responsibilities?
As I said in the last
hearing, the answer doesn’t have to be one or the other. I do believe we need a predictable, credible
process for consultation and approval -- so that the collective judgment of the
people’s directly elected representatives can be brought to bear on these
crucial decisions, as required by the Constitution.
But above all, I believe that
we need a political culture in which the executive and legislative branches can
communicate -- and can make the partnership work.
For its part, Congress has to
take its constitutional responsibilities seriously. And for its part, the Executive Branch has to
stop seeing dialogue and consultation as signs of weakness, or as a ceding of
its constitutional prerogatives. My
friend and Ranking Member Mr. Rohrabacher shared with us in a previous hearing
the instructions he received while working for President Reagan -- don’t be
afraid to talk to anybody. I firmly
believe that our foreign policy process will be strengthened, not weakened, by
the Executive Branch talking with Congress before -- not after -- decisions of
war and peace have been made.
Now, before I introduce our
witnesses, let me yield to Mr. Rohrabacher for his opening remarks.