William R. Richardson: “Mr. Chairman, what we have here is an unfortunate debate at a time when it is important to send a signal that the…”

“Mr. Chairman, what we have here is an unfortunate debate at a time when it is important to send a signal that the country is united behind the President, our Commander in Chief. At this very moment, we have dealt with military action against Iraq for purposes that are bipartisan in support, for international reasons. Yet, once again, if this bill passes, and I can hear a train moving, the message is going to be the United States again is going it alone, snubbing their nose at the United Nations. Right now with our allies we have had difficulty getting them to back some of our actions in Iraq. So we are sending an unfortunate message at a very unfortunate time. Be that as it may. What I think is clear in this debate is this: No. 1, the reason we are having this debate is, I think appropriate, the fact that we have to be very careful when we have limited, temporary operational control of foreign commanders. This has been critically important to our constituents. They worry about this. But what we are doing in this bill, the requirement for Presidential certification before putting U.S. forces under U.N. operation and control, is unacceptable. It is also unconstitutional. Why do we want to tie the hands of the President of the United States? The President is the Commander in Chief. He has to have the discretion to place U.S. military units under limited temporary U.N.…”