Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

AMENDMENT TO H. J. RES.

OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

H.L.C.

Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following: "That pursuant to article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.".

AMENDMENT TO H. J. RES.

OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

H.L.C.

Amend the title so as to read: "Joint Resolution de

claring a state of war between the United States and the Government of Iraq.".

AMENDMENT TO H. J. RES.

OFFERED BY MR. PAUL

Strike the preamble.

H.L.C.

Ms. RUSH. Amendment offered by Mr. Paul: Strike all after the Resolving clause and insert the following:

Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read and that the three amendments be considered as one.

Chairman HYDE. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAUL. Five or ten?

Chairman HYDE. I guess 10. I tried to get away with something. Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is a substitute amendment and it is a simple, clear-cut, straightforward, front-door declaration of war. No back door to war, it is the front door. I am depending on you, Mr. Chairman, to make sure it doesn't pass.

Chairman HYDE. A very wise move.

Mr. LANTOS. You may count on me, too.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I will be voting with you and the Administration on this bill, on this particular substitute. But nevertheless, I consider what I am doing here very important and not frivolous, because this is a declaration of war. As I mentioned before, in the resolution that we have before us, we never mention war. We never mention article I, section 8. We only talk about transferring the power and the authority to the President to wage war when he pleases. I consider that unconstitutional.

Of course, we cite the U.N. 25 times as back-up evidence for what we are doing, so I think it is appropriate for us to think about our oath of office and the Constitution, what America is all about. Because, quite frankly, I think we have suffered tremendously over the last 50 or 60 years, since World War II, since we have rejected this process, because we don't win wars but men die. One hundred thousand men have died in that period of time, and many hundreds of thousands wounded, and many ignored. The Persian Gulf syndrome ignored, yet over 100,000 may be suffering from that.

I see this as very important that we should be up front with the American people, because, if not, we can well slip into war once again. And that, to me, is not what we are supposed to be doing. We are supposed to be very up-front in doing this as we have been obligated to do.

I would like to read a quote from a former President of a few years back. He had something to do with the Constitution. He speaks for that time. Of course, most people believe today that the Constitution is a living, ever-changing document, that the truth is not everlasting and that the founders are irrelevant. But we still have the law on the book. We haven't changed the law. And this quote emphasizes how they looked at foreign policy and the separation of powers, because at the time of our Revolution they had firsthand experience of what happened in Europe when the King or one leader has the authority and the power to go to war.

So it was strongly emphasized by those who were writing the Constitution of where this war power would reside. It was put into the legislative branch of government, which was closest to the people. That is very important, because our failure to win wars is one of the strongest motivations on my part to address this subject.

Quite frankly, I believe that the Persian Gulf War, one, never ended. We are just dealing with one more segment of a war that

[merged small][ocr errors]

is perpetual because it was not declared. We half-heartedly committed, we had the restraints of the United Nations, we did not go for the right reasons, and we didn't win. Therefore, we didn't do the job that should have been done in 1990 if we had declared war. The same thing could have been said about Korea and Vietnam. It is time we address the process just as emphatically as we address the pros and cons of whether this country should go to war. Now, let me quote from James Madison. Madison said in 1798:

"The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrate, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

We have now just carelessly over the years, and today once again, easily given this up.

You say, no, this doesn't necessarily mean that, and we have done if before. We have allowed our Presidents to do this. But if the President can go to war, this is the permission that we are giving.

It is interesting to note that in the United Nations Charter, you do not have a provision that says well, when you want to declare war, here you come, and these are the procedures. When the United Nations gets involved, we are always declaring the use of force for peace. But it gets difficult and it gets muddied, and it is murky under today's conditions because there is no war going on in Iraq. Yet we have not exhausted the vehicle of negotiations and other things that could be done.

So, this is why, unfortunately, I have very little faith and confidence this will be the solution to solve the problem in Iraq and the Middle East. As a matter of fact, if that happens, this is a dramatic reversal of 60 years of history. It is not going to happen.

We have not dealt with the unintended consequences, what we are dealing with today in the sense that the wars continue, but the unintended consequences. And I disagree with the previous speaker who said that this resolution is not dealing with preemptive strikes. That is what the whole thing is about, allowing the President the authority to do a preemptive strike against a nation that has not committed aggression against us. This is the whole issue. So I would say that this is the time that we ought to not only think about the issue of the pros and cons of war, but the issue of how much of our sovereignty we give away to the United Nations and how many restraints will be placed on us, not only now as we try to satisfy everybody in the United Nations, but later on as well. It was said we didn't finish the war in 1990 because of the resolution not permitting us to do this, and therefore it wasn't done, but we were following the rules. Of course, that is why you need— if you commit the country and commit the young people and commit the taxpayer to war-you need to call it war.

So those of you who are for war, vote for this. Those who are opposed to it should vote against the war, because we don't believe it is necessary to go to war right now. If you are honest with yourself, this is what you should do. Otherwise you are perpetuating a

« ÎnapoiContinuă »