National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Paul's amendment to revoke war authority. We have heard on the floor that the consequences of revoking authority are vague and uncertain. Indeed, my team has been seeking a reply from the Department of Defense as to whether there were any conditions we should be alerted to or whether this would create a problem. At the last minute, we appear to have a memo--which has not come to my office--that says there are possible complications.

Well, let's be clear. The executive branch never wants to hand back authority it has been granted. It always wants to retain maximum flexibility. But as my colleague has pointed out, this is an issue of constitutional authority. We had a constitutional discussion about authorizing action in Iraq and, certainly contrary to my opinion, this body supported that action. But now the President is bringing this war to an end.

Doesn't it make sense, then, that we end the authority that went with this war and call a formal end to this battle? The issue has been raised that there might be something that happens in the future. Isn't that true for every country on this planet, that something might happen in the future? Something might happen in Somalia or in Yemen or in any nation in the world. Indeed, under the War Powers Act, the President has the ability to respond immediately. He doesn't need to come to this body for 60 days. So there is extensive flexibility that would go with Iraq just as it goes with every other country, in addition to the authority that has been granted to pursue al-Qaida and associated forces around the world.

When, if not now, should we revoke this authority? Do we say that once granted, at any point in the future the administration can go back to war without the authorization of this body? It is time for us to reclaim the authority of Congress. Should the circumstances arise that the President feels the need to go back into a war mode versus many of the other uses of force that are already authorized under other provisions, then he would have 60 days. He could come back to this body and say: These are the changed circumstances. Under the Constitution, will you grant the power to renew or create a new force of war in that country? Then we can hold that debate in a responsible manner.

But this open-ended commitment under these circumstances doesn't make sense. Congress has yielded its authority under the Constitution far too often to the executive branch. So many times this body has failed to do its fair share under our constitutional framework.

This amendment before us today makes sense in the context of a withdrawal of troops and provides plenty of flexibility to undertake any security issues that might arise in the future. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the Paul amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source