It’s a few days before a war; do you know where your Congress is?

This morning I expressed some concern about why Congressmen Ney and Jones had time to be so concerned about french fries in the House cafeteria, and assumed they had better things to do. After checking some congressional records, I’m left to conclude they didn’t.

I haven’t been checking in with C-SPAN lately, but part of me assumed lawmakers would be engaged in a lively and serious debate over the pending war in Iraq, America’s place as a global leader, a radical and fundamental change in American foreign policy, and our country’s commitment to international alliances and institutions we helped to create. I know that these debates are raging across the country and in legislative bodies around the world, and I took for granted that similar discussions were taking place in the House and Senate, the latter of which is often called the world’s “greatest deliberative body.”

They aren’t. Congress effectively gave President Bush a blank check to proceed with war as his administration sees fit, and in the process, abdicated virtually all relevance from this debate.

The struggle for power and influence between the executive and legislative branches is as old as the country itself, but I can’t remember the last time one branch willingly gave up so much authority on an issue of such import. I guess the point of this post is: where’s Congress?

Just yesterday, as thousands of troops stood ready to launch a massive invasion and the United Nations was facing its most serious institutional challenge in a generation, the House of Representatives featured a debate over whether to rename a room in the Capitol for former Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas), a speech honoring the 100th anniversary of the University of Puerto Rico, and a speech from Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) praising a group that tries to receive public funds to convert convicted criminals to fundamentalist Christianity.

The Senate, meanwhile, was honoring the University of Wisconsin-Madison men’s basketball team, praising the University of Montana’s Monte the Grizzly for being crowned as the Capital One National Mascot of the Year, and hosting a gripping discussion on the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2003.

To be fair, a few lawmakers — including Lynn Woolsey, Chris Van Hollen, and Chris Dodd — made remarks expressing concerns about possible war. But they were in a select minority. Congress has essentially washed its hands of the conflict altogether.

While I often have differences of opinion with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), he has been absolutely right to lament Congress’ failure to engage in a genuine debate over the war. Yesterday he seem astonished that lawmakers’ concerns had shifted to a discussion over whether their cafeteria should feature “french fries” or “freedom fries.”

“The day after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America, the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, `We are all Americans!'” Byrd said on the Senate floor. “Eighteen months later, the United States and France are hurling insults at each other, and the French are leading the opposition to the war against Iraq. In country after country, the United States has seen the outpouring of compassion and support that followed Sept. 11 dissolve into anger and resentment at this administration’s heavy-handed attempts to railroad the world into supporting a questionable war with Iraq.”

Is Byrd right? I think so, but if other Senators disagreed, they should take the floor and say so. In the process lawmakers could discuss these issues, try to reach some areas of consensus and perhaps even influence the international debate. Instead, lawmakers simply moved on to the next topic, such as honoring the Carroll College Saints football team for winning the NAIA National Championship (another actual topic from yesterday’s Senate floor).

I’m left to believe that lawmakers are assuming that they’ve done their part. The House and Senate, after all, did endorse Bush’s plans for war last fall. But much has changed since then, specifically Bush’s approach to the U.N., our NATO allies, the threat of North Korea, and the multiple displomatic failures that have marked the White House’s approach to the world. With so much at stake, I had hoped elected officials would be speaking out either in support of or in opposition to war, engaging in the kind of measured deliberations that befits a democracy as strong as ours. Oh well.