On the recordJune 10, 2015
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. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR.…





