Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Senate Democrats and one Republican on Tuesday
challenged President Bush's declaration to be the "decision-maker" on
issues of war during a hearing on Congress' war powers.
"Congress has the power to stop the war if it wants to," said
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who was interrupted by applause
from observers in the Senate hearing room. "The president
has no plan for ending our mission in Iraq."
Senators asked a panel of constitutional scholars if Congress
had the power to end the war in Iraq by withholding funding.
The experts said Congress did, but it must pass a bill and
a presidential veto.
"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he
is not the sole decider," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.,
who also challenged Bush's declaration. "The decider is
a shared and joint responsibility."
Feingold, who called the hearing, plans to introduce legislation
that would force an end to U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq
by ending funding and giving Bush six months to remove most
U.S. troops.
Feingold said the proposal is not a way to micro-manage the
war.
"It makes no sense to argue that once Congress has authorized
a war it can't take steps to limit or end that war," Feingold
said. "As long as this president goes unchecked by Congress,
our troops will remain needlessly at risk and our national
security will be compromised."
Democrats want to send a signal to the administration that
it cannot ignore Congress, and they threatened to cut off funding
to force troops home.
"By finally setting a limit on our involvement in this
misguided war in Iraq, and backing up that judgment with the
power of the purse, we could re-deploy our troops from that
country and begin to focus on the global terrorist networks
that do continue to threaten the United States," Feingold
said.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Congress can choose to cut
off funds, but opposing the new mission demoralizes U.S. troops
and encourages enemies in Iraq.
"We've authorized whatever force is necessary to fight
this war and then some talk about deauthorizing certain uses
of that force. The message to our troops is we no longer support
them or their mission," Hatch said.
Another Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,
said he believes it is constitutional for Congress to exercise
the power of the purse at the time of war but a non-binding
resolution is a "terrible idea" to declare the war
a loss when it's not a loss.
"It's not a question of authority, it's a question of
wisdom," Graham said. "I hope the Congress is wise
enough to not send a signal to our enemy that we can't stand
to fight them."
The resolution declares Bush's proposal to send 21,500 additional
U.S. troops to Baghdad and Anbar province "not in the
national interest." The Senate could take up the resolution
next month.
Vice President Dick Cheney challenged Congress to back up
its objections to Bush's plan to put 21,500 more troops in
Iraq by zeroing out the war budget.
Other proposals pitch stricter demands.
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is pushing a bill
that would call for troops to come home in 180 days and allow
for a minimum number of forces to be left behind to hunt down
terrorists and train Iraqi security forces.
"Read the Constitution," Boxer told her colleagues
last week. "The Congress has the power to declare war.
And on multiple occasions, we used our power to end conflicts."
Congress used its war powers to cut off or put conditions
on funding for the Vietnam war and conflicts in Cambodia, Somalia
and Bosnia.
Under the Constitution, lawmakers have the ability to declare
war and fund military operations, while the president has control
of military forces.
But presidents also can veto legislation and Bush likely has
enough support in Congress on Iraq to withstand any veto override
attempts.
Not since World War II has Congress issued an official declaration
of war, despite lengthy wars fought in Vietnam and Korea.
Congress does not have to approve military maneuvers.
MyFox -
FOX News' Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed
to this report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
