Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, 10 months ago, we entered into the war against ISIS. During the course of that war, we have put our pilots and other servicemembers at considerable risk, and we have suffered casualties. We have expended hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, and, as yet, there is no end in sight to this conflict.

In the beginning of the conflict and our participation in it, the administration took the position that it didn't need an authorization from Congress although it desired one. The administration relied on the authorities that were passed in 2001 and 2002. The authority in 2001, passed in the hours after 9/11, authorized the use of force against those responsible for 9/11. That is al Qaeda. He also relied on the authorization passed in 2002, which authorized the use of force against Iraq. In fact, neither of those authorities is on point. The use of force that we are employing now against ISIL is being used against an organization that didn't exist on 9/11 and, in fact, is often at war with the organization that was responsible for 9/11. That is al Qaeda.

Nonetheless, the administration has asserted that it can rely on these authorities, and it asked Congress to pass a new authorization because it felt that was the preferential course. At the time and before the midterm elections, the leadership in the House of Representatives took the position that a lame duck Congress should not be voting on a new war and that a vote must wait until after the elections. So the Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility to have a debate and a war declaration, and, instead, we awaited the elections.

The elections came and the elections went, and those of us who raised the cry that it was time for Congress to do its job were met with a new response: we couldn't vote on an authorization now because the administration had not sent us one, even though there is nothing in the Constitution that provides that Congress shall declare war only when asked by the Executive or only when asked politely by the Executive. Nonetheless, we sat, once again, derelict until the administration sent us a draft authorization.

Then there was a new explanation for inaction. We couldn't act on this new authorization because we didn't like the terms of it. This was irrespective of the fact that the Congress has all the power it needs to change that draft or operate under a completely new draft authorization, and still we did nothing.

Then the explanation was given we couldn't act on a war authorization because we had to have a vote on the negotiations with Iran, even though those negotiations were not yet complete. So we had a vote on the negotiations with Iran, in fact, a vote to later have a vote.

Now we are here once again with a series of shifting rationales for why we don't have a debate on this war ongoing now for 10 months. This must come to an end. The amendment that I have offered this evening would provide that no funds shall be expended for the war against ISIS after a certain date in March of next year unless Congress authorizes a war against ISIS. If this is worth fighting--and I believe it is; I believe this ought to be authorized--it is worth having Congress do its job. If we are going to ask our servicemembers to risk their lives, we ought to have the courage ourselves to make a vote on this war.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman and would like to respond to my colleague's points.

First of all, the effect of this is not to end funding immediately. The effect of this would end funding in 9 months if we fail to take up and pass an authorization. Certainly, 10 months into the war and 9 months from now ought to be ample time for the Congress to do its constitutional duty.

Second, my colleague makes the point that he doesn't agree with the President's strategy. We may take issue with the President's strategy, and we all have our opinions about how this war ought to be waged, but one thing is clear: it is not going to impact the strategy if Congress does its job or not. That impacts our institution; that doesn't impact the Presidency. It is our institutional interest in having a voice in the war-making authority that is at stake here.

Finally, the gentleman asked: What kind of a message are we sending with an amendment like this? I would say the message we are sending is that we value our Constitution; we respect the requirements of our Constitution. Our Constitution says that Congress--not the Executive, but Congress--shall have the power to declare war.

My colleague says this is merely a symbolic act. I suppose that is true if you think that the constitutional clause that gives the Congress the power to declare war is only symbolic, but I think it is far more than symbolic and key to the balance of power.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source