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.
[Page S1067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
S.J. RES. 68
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, earlier today, we voted on an amendment to
S.J. Res. 68 that was offered by the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Risch. That amendment consisted of one sentence, as
follows: ``The President has a constitutional responsibility to take
actions to defend the United States, its territories, possessions,
citizens, servicemembers and diplomats from attack.''
On its face, the Risch amendment seems reasonable. The President does
have a responsibility to defend the country. But, as is so often the
case, the devil is in the details, or the absence of details, and when
it involves engaging U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities, we should pay
particularly close attention. I was among those who opposed the
amendment and I want to explain why.
First, it is important to note that the underlying resolution already
states that ``[nothing] in this section shall be construed to prevent
the United States from defending itself from imminent attack.'' So
there is no question about the President's authority to defend the
country. But the central purpose of the resolution is to give meaning
to the Congress's constitutional authority--the Congress's sole power--
to declare war. For far too long this body has surrendered that duty to
the executive branch.
In 2002, when the Senate considered whether or not to authorize
President George W. Bush to invade Iraq, many in this body argued that
providing the President with that authority was needed to convince
Saddam Hussein to back down. I, instead, saw it as Congress abdicating
its constitutional duty by providing the President with open-ended
authority to use military force against Iraq. For that reason, among
others, I voted no.
In fact, my worst fears were realized. Not only was the justification
for that war based on lies, but thousands of Americans died, trillions
of dollars were wasted that could have been used to fix what's broken
in this country, and the American people are no safer. Today that
authority is being used in ways that no one envisioned or intended to
justify an attack against another country, Iran, nearly two decades
later.
We should learn from that costly mistake. The obvious implication of
the Risch amendment is that any President is authorized, and has an
affirmative responsibility, to use military force at anytime, anywhere,
indefinitely, to prevent an unspecified attack that might occur
sometime in the future. There is no requirement that it be
``imminent''. There is no requirement that such an attack be anything
other than speculative or imagined.
Given the way this and past administrations have expansively
interpreted past authorizations for the use of force, the Risch
amendment could be interpreted to further erode Congress's ability to
prevent a President from unilaterally sending U.S. forces into
hostilities without prior consultation with, or further authorization
from, the Congress. Such an endorsement--even if unintended--of
unchecked Executive power undermines the purpose of the underlying
joint resolution, and it makes a mockery of the Congress's sole power
to declare war. That is not something any of us should condone.
____________________