CONTENTS LIST OF WITNESSES Tuesday, June 1, 1971: Bingham, Hon. Jonathan B., a Representative in Congress from the Chappell, Hon. Bill, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Page 12 32 Fascell, Hon. Dante B., a Representative in Congress from the State Horton, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of 222 20 Wednesday, June 2, 1971: Kauper, Thomas E., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Depart- 57 Sisk, Hon. B. F., a Representative in Congress from the State of 41 52 Stevenson, Hon. John R., Legal Adviser, Department of State__. STATEMENTS AND MEMORANDUMS SUBMITTED Text of House Joint Resolution 669, to limit the authority of the President Membership of proposed Joint Committee on National Security. Statement of Hon. Jack Edwards of Alabama__. Statement of Hon. Albert H. Quie of Minnesota_ Statement of Hon. Claude Pepper of Florida_ Statement of Hon. Robert L. F. Sikes of Florida_ Statement submitted by Prof. John Norton Moore, University of Virginia Statement submitted by Charles A. Weil, New York, N. Y 107 Statement submitted by Prof. Theodore J. Lowi, Department of Political 109 Statement submitted by Prof. W. T. Mallison, Jr., National Law Center, 119 Statement submitted by Prof. Lawrence Velvel, school of law, University of 120 Statement of Hon. William P. Rogers, Secretary of State, on Congress, the 122 Statement of Leon Friedman, special counsel, American Civil Liberties 133 (V) WAR POWERS LEGISLATION TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, POLICY AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clement J. Zablocki (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. BACKGROUND OF HEARINGS Mr. ZABLOCKI. The subcommittee will please come to order. Today the Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments opens 2 days of hearings on pending bills and resolutions concerning the war powers of Congress and the President. Last summer this subcommittee held extensive hearings on war powers legislation. We took testimony from some 23 witnesses, including Members of Congress, private experts, and spokesmen for the executive branch. As a result of those hearings, the subcommittee drafted a joint resolution on the war powers which was unanimously approved by the full House Foreign Affairs Committee and passed the House of Representatives on November 16, 1970, by a vote of 288 to 39. Because of the failure of the Senate to act, that resolution lapsed with the end of the 91st Congress. A similar resolution has been introduced into the 92d Congress as House Joint Resolution 1. That resolution and a number of other proposals which have been introduced on the subject of war powers will be considered during these hearings. Because of the extensive hearings held last year, this series is to be limited to Members of Congress and representatives of the executive branch. INTRODUCTION OF CONGRESSMAN FASCELL Our first witness this afternoon is the Honorable Dante Fascell, adistinguished Member of Congress from Florida. It was he who introduced the war powers bill in the 91st Congress which resulted in the 1970 subcommittee hearings and the eventual passage of a resolution. Congressman Fascell participated actively in those hearings and in the sessions during which the subcommittee's resolution was drafted. He also was active during floor debate on the resolution. No man in the Congress has done more than he to focus the attention of the Congress on the war powers issue in an effort to find a means to insure future cooperation between the Congress and the President on behalf of our Nation. Mr. Fascell, we are pleased to have you come before the subcommittee and look forward to your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. FASCELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. It is a special privilege to once again testify before the National Security Policy Subcommittee on the war powers of the Congress and the President. Thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the other distinguished members of this subcommittee, much has happened in the last 11 months to clarify the respective responsibilities of the Congress and the President under the Constitution to initiate, to conduct, and to conclude armed hostilities with other nations. One year ago, almost no one in the House of Representatives had drawn upon the experience of Vietnam to call for a basic reappraisal of the way this Nation involves itself in war. The Cambodian incursion which involved U.S. forces in combat without prior congressional consultation or authorization made clear to many more, myself included, the need for such a comprehensive review of the war powers of Congress and the President. To serve as a vehicle for that reappraisal and as a catalyst to a discussion of this vital constitutional issue, I introduced a bill, H.R. 17598, on May 13, 1970, to define the authority of the President to intervene abroad or make war without the express consent of Congress. The bill gathered a significant number of cosponsors and a fair amount of attention-some friendly, and some otherwise, as had been intended. BILL ACHIEVED REAL PURPOSE But, Mr. Chairman, the bill achieved its real purpose-a full discussion of the many delicate constitutional and practical issues involved when you, with your characteristic generosity and responsiveness, agreed to hold hearings. And hold them you did-from June 18 to August 5 last year. Mr. Chairman, I can hardly say enough in praise of you, the members of the subcommittee, and your able staff consultant, Mr. Jack Sullivan, for the comprehensive manner in which you have approached this most complex and delicate subject. The hearings were among the most carefully structured and thorough it has been my privilege to attend. And, I might add-that the full attendance of subcommittee members, and many members of the full committee reflected the importance of the subject. Out of those hearings came a consensus about how to begin to restore a proper constitutional balance between Congress and the President and a joint resolution based on that consensus. That resolution passed the House overwhelmingly last fall, but died when the Senate failed to act. The same resolution, slightly modified, House Joint Resolution 1, is again pending before the subcommittee. I fully supported the resolution last year, and I wholeheartedly endorse it again this year. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1: IMPORTANT FIRST STEP But, Mr. Chairman, if I thought that the only thing that had come out of last year's hearings was House Joint Resolution 1, I would oppose it. For we cannot delude ourselves that one bill-or a series of bills-will by themselves give this Nation the kind of control over how we go to war that we need. House Joint Resolution 1 is an important first step toward reestablishing necessary congressional authority in the area, and it should become law, but by itself it is not enough. What is needed is a whole network of mechanisms, but, most of all, of attitudes which will insure: That American soldiers will never die unless it is absolutely necessary; That this Nation will never again go to war bit-by-bit with a minimum of consideration; That if we must ever go to war again, it will be only with the deep and widespread understanding and support of the American people; and That never again will the only choice we have to counter indirect aggression and subversion be U.S. military intervention. Mr. Chairman, let me elaborate for just one moment on this last point. Clearly, when an ally is attacked overtly and in large numbers, we will probably have no alternative but direct involvement. But short of that kind of aggression, when we get to the point where the only way we can keep an important nation friendly is military intervention, then our policy has failed. If we are to avoid future Vietnams, then we in the free world must evolve nonmilitary policies to counter subversion, but most importantly we must develop imaginative and constructive ways of thinking about these problems. Only by building in alternative approaches can we avoid getting locked into situations which are doomed to escalation, because both sides have locked their thinking onto only one possible course of action and reaction. 1970 WAR POWERS HEARINGS CHANGED ATTITUDES Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most important thing which came out of last year's hearings was just such a change in attitudes. For the hearings, along with last year's Senate and House debates, produced a widespread public discussion of the war powers. This discussion led to a change in attitude which this year has seen renewed and wider interest in the subject in the House, including a number of resolutions including one by my colleague from Florida, initiation of hearings for the first time in the Senate, and support for war powers legislation by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Clearly, we have come a long way, but just as surely we have a long way to go before we can feel secure in the knowledge that we have done all we can to be certain that the vast military forces we have created are subject to the fullest possible restraints of reason. The place to begin to prevent our needless involvement in future wars, Mr. Chairman, is right here in Congress, right here in this subcommittee. Not simply by passing more laws, though some like House Joint Resolution 1 and perhaps other stronger ones are needed, but by insisting that present laws are carried out; by asserting the constitutional prerogatives and powers that are already ours. |