Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H4777-H4778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FUNDING FOR WAR AND THE WAR POWERS ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we spent many hours in this Chamber talking
about the amendments to the appropriations bill, this combination of
several appropriations bills, that we will pass later this week.
What I would like to take a minute to talk about is an amendment I
didn't offer because we got the material in the base text.
Our Constitution creates a tension between Article I and Article II
when it comes to the power to wage war: the Commander in Chief on the
one hand versus the authority of Congress to declare war on the other.
Thomas Jefferson determined that it was necessary to get the approval
of Congress before he deployed Marines to the shores of Tripoli, our
first non-declared war, our first intervention in the Middle East, and
a precedent that should have been followed by subsequent Presidents.
But in fact, since the days of Jefferson, on many occasions,
Presidents just sent our troops in without seeking authority from
Congress. That is why in 1973, in the wake of the Vietnam war, this
Congress passed the War Powers Act, also known as the War Powers
Resolution. It provides that the President cannot deploy for more than
60 or 90 days without an authorization to use military force.
Now, that act of 1973 is not everything it should be because it did
not encompass the idea of bombing without deploying troops for periods
of 60 or 90 days. It is unclear, perhaps. It is in need of revision,
perhaps, but it is the only legal restraint on a President committing
us to war without any approval from this Congress.
But every Attorney General since the 1970s has advised Presidents
that the War Powers Act isn't actually binding on them, that a
President can send unlimited troops into battle for an unlimited period
for any purpose. This is not what should be, and yet many
constitutional scholars agree with these provisions, with this
interpretation. That is
[[Page H4778]]
why the provision that we have in this appropriations bill is so
important.
I want to commend the subcommittee and the full committee for
including in the base text the provision that says no funds shall be
used in contravention of the War Powers Act. This is a provision I
originally proposed as an amendment on this floor in 2011. We lost the
first time, but we ultimately prevailed, and now it is part of the base
text. This adds the power of the purse to enforce the War Powers Act.
I am pleased to report that Attorney General Mukasey, a Republican
Attorney General, a strong advocate for Presidential power, testified
before the Foreign Affairs Committee that he believes and would advise
the President that they need not follow the War Powers Act but that
they dare not spend a penny in contravention of the War Powers Act if
this provision is included in the relevant appropriations bill. So I
commend the committee for including this and assuring that any
reasonable Attorney General will tell any President they must adhere to
that critical 1973 act.
Cryptocurrency
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining few seconds, let me deal
with another subject. Mark Zuckerberg has announced that he's going to
introduce a cryptocurrency, or his plans to do so.
The effect would be to undermine our economy by reducing the
importance of the U.S. dollar in international transactions and to
undermine our national security by making it easier for drug dealers,
terrorists, and sanctions evaders to do businesses without using the
U.S. dollar.
I look forward to addressing this House further and to working in the
Financial Services Committee. But it certainly concerns me that a man
who has benefited like no other from the protection of the U.S.
national security efforts and from the U.S. economy would undermine
both in an effort to make even more billions.
____________________
