National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (Extensions of Remarks - May 17, 2007)

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes:

* Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Chairman, yesterday, as part of the Defense Authorization bill, we voted on an amendment offered by Mr. DEFAZIO of Oregon that would, with limited exceptions, require the President to obtain congressional authorization before taking military action against Iran. I want to make something crystal clear: I fully support the intent of the amendment. However, I opposed the DeFazio Amendment for three reasons.

* First by singling out Iran, the amendment created a troubling implication that the President could take military action against other countries without congressional authorization. For example, there have been reports that the Bush Administration has considered military action against Syria. The DeFazio Amendment did not mention Syria. Does the omission of Syria, or any other country, give the President a green light to attack other nations without congressional authorization? Essentially, the DeFazio Amendment re-stated what I believe to be the powers of the Congress under the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. The Executive Branch must respect those powers. It establishes a bad precedent for the Congress to pass a DeFazio type amendment every time it is concerned the Executive Branch might take military action against a particular country in violation of the Constitution and statutory law. That would send the wrong message that Congress doesn't care whether the Executive abides by the Constitution unless the Congress passes a similar amendment in every instance.

* Second, it is difficult to predict every possible contingency when formulating legislation regarding the use of military force. If, for example, the DeFazio Amendment became the law of the land, and American civilians were taken hostage in Iran, the President would be prohibited from ordering a military rescue operation unless the Congress first passed a resolution. Certainly, that was not the intent of Mr. DEFAZIO's amendment, but that is its effect.

* Finally, the DeFazio Amendment does not address the problem that led to the bad decision to go to war in Iraq. Afterall, President Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq. The problem was that Congress mistakenly passed a resolution giving the President that authority.

* In conclusion, while I support the spirit and intent of this amendment, I think it establishes an unwise precedent, fails to consider all the contingencies that might lead to the justifiable use of force, and fails to address the issue that led to the war in Iraq.

Source