Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the gentleman that there was another issue overhanging that debate and that vote. The President had just gone through the Saturday night massacre. There was nobody more vulnerable on this planet than Richard Nixon, and I dare suggest, without knowing, a lot of those people wished to show a lack of support for the President because of the problems he was having. I could be wrong but I would just like to offer that. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for a thoughtful, well reasoned, and illuminating statement, which is typical of the gentleman. I just want to simply say in Vietnam there was not a bullet shot, there was not a gun held by a GI, that was not authorized and paid for by this Congress, and this Congress can stop it, or can make it go ahead any time it wants. I suggest again to the gentleman that my amendment requires us to know, to be in at the take-off as well as the landing, to be not only informed but to be given reports, periodic reports. Then we have the power to stop it or go ahead, and be a full partner. We would be the dominating partner, because the President cannot wage war without our funding it. Lastly, the lesson of Vietnam, to anybody who is not deaf, dumb, and blind, is that you cannot carry on a war without the support of the people. That means the support of Congress. We are, under the Constitution, under the power to appropriate and raise the money and spend it, we are full partners. We are the senior partner with the executive.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I listened awestruck by what the gentleman from Illinois just got through saying. It appears to me that he really believes this act, this war powers resolution, which the Congressional Reference Service 2 days ago said, with respect to your question regarding the number of instances when the Congress has utilized the war powers resolution since its enactment in 1973 to compel the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from foreign deployments, we can cite no single specific instance when this has occurred. It has never been used. The gentleman seems to imply that Congress would be in a state of paralysis if we got into a combat situation. I would tell the gentleman, but he knows this, we have a Committee on Appropriations, a Committee on Armed Services, a Committee on International Relations, and they would be vigorously holding hearings and disbursing legislation, and we control the purse. The existence or nonexistence of the War Powers Act is utterly irrelevant. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. I just want to say I was here in 1975, and I remember it was 2 o'clock in the morning, and we were debating, and we debated--the total debate lasted three weeks, and President Ford wanted authority to send troops to get our people out of Saigon, and Congress never could reach a decision, and I remember John Connolly--John Conlan, I guess his name was, from Arizona--standing there saying, ``It's Dunkirk over there. We're getting pushed in the sea.'' Congress could never come to closure. The President finally sent the troops anyway, but that is what it was----

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Can the gentleman envision Saddam Hussein taking comfort in the fact that after 60 days maybe the troops would be withdrawn while Congress dithered?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Nobody ever conceded that that was for the War Powers Act.

Mr. HYDE. When has it been used?

Mr. HYDE. Why are we impotent? Why do we need this act which is a nullity----

Mr. HYDE. I want to suggest to the gentleman I am as concerned as he is with the lives of young people. I have been in combat, I was in an invasion, so I am very sensitive to that. Now will the gentleman tell me why is it, does he believe, that Congress is impotent to stop within one day any military engagement if we cut off the funding? Is the gentleman aware of how many times we have done that?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, why does the gentleman assume paralysis on the part of Congress when it comes to appropriating money? Is the gentleman not aware that we have cut off funds time and time again for military operations? And the gentleman, as a Member of Congress, could join in the consensus that can be developed and cut the water off immediately.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. You are getting me in trouble here. I would work very hard for the gentleman's vote. Let me just say this to you: There is no question that a law on the books has to be taken into account by a President. He may think it is unconstitutional, but to just deliberately flout a law that is on the books and has not been declared unconstitutional would be very foolish. So I do not think you can read into the fact that they considered the existence of this law that it animated them to do anything. Common sense and the President's own military experience and service in Congress required him to consult, and he did.

Mr. HYDE. I would not mind. I do not know who your opponent is.

Mr. HYDE. I did not catch that. What did you say?.

Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman will yield, I would just say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], and I hope I do live to see the day that you are President, I would be very thrilled and applaud that good judgment by our American voters, but I would say this----

Mr. HYDE. I would just tell my friend from California at that time in history I was ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and, therefore, I got invited into the consultations, and we spent a lot of time, many, many days at the White House, Dante Fascell, Senator Nunn, everybody who had any connection with the military, foreign affairs and intelligence sat around and this was fully, fully debated. There was no question that the President was going to do something without Congress's knowledge and acquiescence. So I do not know what the gentleman doubts, because we require prior consultation, during consultation, after consultation, notification within 48 hours, and reports, detailed reports.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that repeals the War Powers Act and sets up a structure for consultation and reporting by the President. This amendment that I am offering does three things: In addition to repealing the War Powers Resolution, it requires ongoing consultation between Congress and the President, the President to consult with Congress, before the introduction of troops, ongoing consultation while they are there and after the troops are introduced, and the third thing it does, it requires timely and comprehensive reports to Congress, within 48 hours of the engagement, and in detail. These also are ongoing. Mr. Chairman, the War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973. In casting about for the best way to describe it, I came up with the inelegant phrase ``wet noodle,'' but that is about what the War Powers Act has been. It has never been used. No President have ever acknowledged that it is there or that it is constitutional. The vice, the flaw, the fault with the War Powers resolution is that the President must withdraw troops within 60 days after he has committed them unless Congress acts specifically to endorse the deployment. Congress can halt a deployment after 60 days by doing nothing, by dithering, by debating. If Congress is unsympathetic or opposed to the commitment of troops, Congress can pass a bill cutting off the funding. The ultimate weapon, the ultimate power of the purse under the Constitution, remains with Congress. Therefore, that is all the authority we need to halt, to bring to a screeching halt, any commitment of troops. But to have on the books a law that says by doing nothing, by inaction we can halt and reverse and turn around a military commitment of troops is really an absurdity. What it does is provide our enemies with a statutory timetable. They can wait it out to see if Congress and the President are not getting along. [[Page H5656]] There are a couple of things we ought to always bear in mind. First of all, the Constitution says that President is Commander in Chief. That is true whether Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or Bill Clinton is President. We are talking about the institution and constitutional powers that devolve on the President, whoever that may be. The second unshakable, immutable, important point is we always have the purse strings clutched in our hand. We can pass a bill, and we have passed several to withhold funding for certain military operations. That is the effective way to work our will should we disagree with the President. Congress alone can declare war but the President who is charged with the responsibility of defending this country needs flexibility, he needs to act quickly, and he should not, and the law should not provide our enemies, whether it is Saddam Hussein or Raoul Cedras or anybody else, with the hope, with the expectation that in 60 days they will all have to come home. That is a disincentive to settle a dispute and to negotiate. So, I think that is a mistake and I think it has been on the books too long and it ought to be taken off. No President has ever considered the war powers resolutions as constitutional. I have letters from President Ford, President Jimmy Carter, President George Bush. Henry Kissinger said it should be repealed; it is misleading and ineffective. Howard Baker when he was the majority leader in the Senate said it is an attempt to write in the margins of the Constitution. It is confusing and gives comfort to our opponents. Congress has used its power of the purse to limit and even halt military operations, many, many times, and I have a list here from the congressional reference service. During the Vietnam war in December of 1970 we prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide advisers to or for Cambodian military forces. In 1973 we cut off funds for combat activities in Indochina after August 15, 1973. We did. June 30, 1973, no funds herein or heretofore appropriated may be obligated or expended to finance directly or indirectly combat activities by U.S. military forces in or over, above the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.