between the two in definition. If there wasn't a significant difference, we wouldn't have two words. And it seems to me we start from that fundamental question.

Then in the War Powers Resolution-you have stated very clearly your opposition to the entire War Powers Resolution, but it seems to me that there are some extraordinary flaws within the War Powers Resolution if we were to examine it piece by piece.

In your view, do we miss covering the entire gamut of potential events when the War Powers Resolution states that the constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated are exercised only in three ways: a declaration of war, which much come from Congress; specific statutory authorization; or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions or its Armed Forces? Aren't there other circumstances that might well call for reaction by the United States, prompt action or reaction, that are excluded by this particular provision?

President FORD. Well, that is why I, among other things, think the War Powers Resolution is unnecessary. You cannot define every possible contingency that might arise in this day and age. And when you do, you get in trouble.

I strongly-and this is a repeat of what I have said before-we don't need this legislation. Presidents I personally feel will exercise the proper restraint and judgment and Congress can, on the other hand exercise its proper role if and when such a situation arises. Senator EVANS. In the testimony of Mr. Sofaer this morning, which I did not have a chance to listen to, but I read his testimony. And he has an interesting proposition that does deal with what you had talked about as a limitation on Presidential authority, and that is the power of the purse, where he says, "Congress has broad power to control the expenditure of funds, however, may not use its funding power to restrict or usurp the independent constitutional authority of another branch. We understand that fully and we don't attempt to interfere with the judiciary in terms of carrying out its function."

He says, "By the same token, Congress could not lawfully deny funds for the Armed Forces to compel the President to cease exercising functions that are lawfully his as Commander in Chief, such as defense of U.S. vessels from attack on the high seas in a particular region." It seems to me he is-and is saying, "Congress would also exceed its authority by ordering the President to conduct a particular type of military operation in a specific manner. The power to control spending cannot properly be used to interfere with the President's discretion or the conduct of military operations." That seems to me to indicate to me that he is suggesting at least that the power of the purse of Congress runs up against the constitutional authority of the President to carry out his functions.

I don't know if you would care to tell us where you think that line belongs.

President FORD. I am not sure I would go as far as Mr. Sofaer has indicated. I don't think Congress can use the power of the purse to tell a President that he has to use this weapon system or

that weapon system in the actual undertaking of the national defense of the United States.

I happen to believe that what was done during the Vietnam war limiting funds for the further activities there was constitutional as long as it was passed by a majority of the Members of the House and Senate and not vetoed by a President. I think that is proper, but to try and minimanage the use of weapons in a war or vessels in a war I think is going too far.

Senator EVANS. Thank you.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you.
Senator Simon.

Senator SIMON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, as I indicated to you earlier, I heard Hubert Humphrey say what a tremendous contribution Gerald Ford had made in restoring confidence in our Government, and I really believe it was a major, major contribution.

If I may follow my colleague, Dan Evans, here when he says the Constitution says Congress is granted the power to declare war, but it is very interesting what follows that. It says, "to declare war, make rules concerning captures on land and water."

Then there is the only limitation that is made on appropriations, the only one in the Constitution. It says, "to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money of that use shall be for a longer term than 2 years."

Clearly, the message of the Constitution is that restraint has to be used. And somehow I think that is what we are all trying to strive for is a sensible use of restraint.

If I can use an example from just 2 days ago. We had a resolution-I think I may be a cosponsor on it too-to impose sanctions on Iraq for the use of chemical warfare against the Kurds. George Shultz testified before the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, but we got into the Iraq situation. And George Shultz told us, he said, "Let's be careful. Let's make sure we know what the facts are before we pass any legislation.'

Now, in the case of economic sanctions, we have time to find that out. If instead of economic sanctions we were talking about the use of personnel and weapons, we might not have that time. And a second voice saying hold on, let's find out what the facts are, I think is a very healthy thing.

Now, one of the things that struck me about your testimony, Mr. President, was that I think you used six illustrations when you were President. Four of the six involved evacuation of American personnel. I wonder if an exception should be made in the War Powers Act where there is evacuation of personnel. Realistically you want to repeal the whole thing. That isn't going to happen. Does that strike you as a sensible exception that should be made in the War Powers Act?

President FORD. I can see where that might make sense because under the current phraseology, it includes both initial actions as well as any others. And certainly an evacuation is in a different category whether it is our troops from Danang or Saigon or Phnom Penh. It is a different kind of a military engagement. That is a thought that ought to be examined.

Senator SIMON. And in the case of an evacuation, there you have to move very, very quickly.

President FORD. Sure. We had people on the beaches who were sitting ducks that if we didn't move our ships and our other forces into that position, those who were trying to get out were just pawns in the hands of the enemy.

Senator SIMON. Well, it seems to me that this suggestion-and, Mr. Chairman, you are drafting legislation-that this may be an exception that we ought to put into the law. If, on the other hand, we want to use troops in Iraq or someplace else, then that restraint ought to be there.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Again, I just want to thank President Ford for being here and thank him for the great contribution he has made to our Nation.

President FORD. Thank you.

Senator BIDEN. Senator Kassebaum, last but surely not least.
Senator KASSEBAUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

President Ford, I remember you giving a very eloquent argument, the Landon Lecture Series at Kansas State University, I think in 1977 or 1978 against the War Powers Resolution. And it was the first debate really I heard that triggered my interest in this issue, and you persuaded me at that lecture that, as a matter of fact, that it should be given some very careful thought to what the War Powers Resolution was about and wasn't about.

And it seems to me in listening to some of the testimony here and through past hearings we have had, which have been very interesting, that perhaps it came about in our frustration between the executive and legislative branch to really define what we were doing because I am one who believes that Congress does have the power and the means to influence whatever actions are being taken. The power of the purse is a very strong and I think persuasive power that we have.

And we have had past actions going much further back. And I think Senator Adams' illustrations were interesting, but I don't think that is what has caused necessarily our debt problems. I think that throughout history we have had Presidents who have undertaken actions when they have felt it was important, and we have never had really Congress saying, "Well, where were we."

I think what has changed-and as you go back and analyze the Vietnam period-is a lack of comity or more importantly consultation between the executive and the legislative branch. I don't think the War Powers Resolution necessarily makes that possible. And I think one of the things that we really should consider is why this is broken down.

Some of it I think is just the process both in Congress with the diffusion of committees and subcommittees, with the chairmen no longer the strong chairmen that they were when you go back in talking about President Truman and his relations with Congress; and in the executive branch, the diffusion there, the National Security Council playing a significant role, the Defense Department, the State Department, the President listening to all of these advisors. And I think it is this diffusion that has really not lent a clarity of purpose. Now, there can be disagreement, but one has to have some clarity of purpose on all sides or else it does get very fuzzy.

And I think to a certain extent, we might have turned to the War Powers Resolution somewhat as a happiness and security blanket. We felt it gave us then in more clearly defined terms responses that we had to make and said to the President he had to ask us. All of that is really there if we want to exercise it. It is just that we have failed I think to exercise in many ways the responsibilities and the voice that we do have.

That is more of a statement than a question, Mr. President, but do you think that perhaps some of this has come about because of just the changes that have taken place in the structure of the executive and legislative branches?

President FORD. That opens a wide door, Senator. And I do think that there has been some structural changes in the executive branch that have contributed, but I also think there have been some serious changes in the Congress that have had an impact.

I believe the proliferation of subcommittees is a problem. I happen to believe that the change in the seniority system has been a factor. I see some disintegration of leadership in both parties because of the orgy of reform that took place in the 1960's and in the 1970's. So, I think both the executive and the legislative branches have gone through a transition that makes it less likely that they can get the job done. I mean, that is my own feeling.

I remember the days when Sam Rayburn used to go down to the White House and meet with President Eisenhower, and he would come back on a foreign policy matter. And he was usually in agreement with the President or they were in agreement with one another. The press always used to ask him, "Well, have you consulted with the troops." And Sam Rayburn used to say, better than I can, "Well, I decided that." So, he didn't have any disintegration among his troops, and Joe Martin had much the same circumstance.

Now, that is pretty authoritarian, but you have I think better results.

If I can throw in another plug on a different subject, but I think it is in somewhat the same ballpark. Congress better undertake a massive examination and change in the Budget Reform and AntiImpoundment Act. That piece of legislation has been a disaster. You only have to look at the record, but that is another subject. Senator KASSEBAUM. Thank you.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you very much, Senator.

You know, Mr. President, when I first got here, I was 29 years old and that seniority system looked awful. [Laughter.]

Now that I am chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the No. 2 guy on this committee on our side, I really think there is such incredible wisdom in the seniority system, and I am beginning to see your point of view much more clearly than I did 16 years ago. President FORD. Well, when I first ran for Congress, Mr. Chairman, I was 35, and there was an incumbent Republican who was 65 who had been here 10 years. I thought he was much too old, doddering, to perform his responsibilities in a proper way. But times do change your thinking. [Laughter.]

Senator BIDEN. They sure do, Mr. President. But some things don't change. When I got here when I was 30, they made it pretty hard for me to get on the elevator. It was a big deal to get in the Senators' elevator. I was in the hospital and at home for 7 months

this year, and when I came back to the Senate, the first day I got back, they tried to deny me access to the elevator. [Laughter.]

So, how quickly they forget you around this place.

But we haven't forgotten you, Mr. President.

President FORD. Thank you.

Senator BIDEN. We truly appreciate your testimony and look for

ward to visiting with you after the hearing.

President FORD. Fine. Thank you all.

Senator BIDEN. The hearing is recessed.

President FORD. It is a real honor and a privilege to be here. Senator BIDEN. Thank you, and the subcommittee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10:15 a.m., September 16, 1988.]