November 7, 1973
Page 36194
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate has an historic opportunity this afternoon to achieve a result that, in my judgment, the great majority of the American people have been seeking for at least ten years.
As I reflect back on the past 10 years, the present difficulties which beset our country, the growing lack of confidence among our people in their institutions, their leadership, and the political process, it seems to me that if any single development led to our present situation, it was the expansion of the Presidential role with respect to the making of war.
I do not have time to spell out the case that I have just asserted. But this legislation is an important step, a significant step, a step that will be visible to the American people, reflecting on the determination of Congress to begin to restore the balance between the legislative and executive branches with respect to the war-making powers.
I understand, of course, that such dedicated and able Senators as the distinguished Senator from Missouri disagree as to the meaning of the legislation which the President has vetoed. I do not have time this afternoon to make the case which, hopefully, might reassure him. Indeed, I do not have the confidence that I could reassure him.
But let me make this point:
The President vetoed this bill because he said it took power away from him that it was essential the President have in the national interest.
The Senator from Missouri argues that the legislation which the President vetoed gives the President more power than he should have with respect to the making of war, and that that is against the national interest.
Mr. President, writing legislation in this field is a difficult proposition. It is clear that the President of the United States – and I refer not just to this President – and the Congress, and I mean a substantial majority of Congress, disagree as to what the respective roles of Congress and the President are concerning tie making of war.
We could not hope, conceivably, to resolve that difference of opinion in any piece of legislation, either that which passed the Senate in the first instance or this bill which has been vetoed by the President. We simply cannot rewrite the Constitution in a way which can get the concurrence of the President and the Congress on this point.
So this bill does not undertake to do that. The bill does not undertake to impose on the President a modification of his constitutional powers. It does not undertake to assert a restatement of Congress' view as to the President's role with respect to the war-making power.
What it undertakes to do is to establish a procedure for comity as to different views in the future, so that Congress can be brought in from the periphery of the war-making power to its center in order to exercise its proper role.
With respect to the comments that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON) has made, let me make this simple point:
In section 2 of the bill, we find this language to which the Senator has already referred:
The constitutional powers of President as commander in chief to introduce the United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant, one, to a declaration of war and, two, to specific statutory authorization or, three, a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its Armed Forces.
It is true, as the Senator from Missouri has pointed out, that this language is not operative language.
Why was it put into the bill?
It was put into the bill as an indication that, in enacting a bill, Congress did not intend to surrender any of its constitutional powers with respect to the making of war.
The remainder of the bill is a procedural bill, undertaken to insure consultation by the President with Congress and undertaking to put in the hands of Congress the procedure for terminating any hostilities into which the President may have plunged us, whether or not his action in so doing conformed with our view as to what his constitutional powers might be.
So I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to begin the process of reasserting and reestablishing the role of Congress in the war-making powers. It is a historic opportunity, and I hope we do not let it pass us by.