Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
SENDS A VERY STRONG SIGNAL AND
TELLS THE PRESIDENT IN NO
UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT YOU CANNOT
TAKE US TO WAR WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS
COUNTRY.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
AND I INITIALLY JUST YIELD
MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO GET THE RECORD
STRAIGHT ON WHAT WE'RE DOING
AND WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING.
NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND DID NOT
COME BECAUSE OF THIS RESOLUTION
WE'RE CONSIDERING NOW.
THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE
PRESIDENT, THE COMMANDER IN
CHIEF, AT THE TIME.
BUT THE FIGURES GIVEN BY MY
FRIEND FROM INDIANA DON'T
REFLECT THE REALITY OF OUR
PARTICIPATION.
WHAT ARE WE DOING NOW?
WELL, WE'RE NOT IN THE LEAD.
THE UNITED STATES IS
CONTRIBUTING SIGNIFICANTLY TO
THE OPERATION.
FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FOR THE
SUPPRESSION OF THE ENEMY AIR
DEFENSE, I.S.R. AIRCRAFT,
ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT,
AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT, ONE
GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER AND
PREDATOR ARMED UNMANNED AERIAL
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS.
24%, NOT 2/3 OF THE TOTAL
AIRCRAFT, 27% OF THE TOTAL
AIRPLANES, 70% OF INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE AND
RECONNAISSANCE.
NOW, THERE'S NO BOOTS ON THE
GROUND, BUT TO ME THAT
INVOLVEMENT IMPLICATES THE WAR
POWERS RESOLUTION.
THIS IS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THAT BILL, AND ONCE AGAIN ONLY
KUCINICH HAS BEFORE US A
PROPOSAL THAT SEEKS TO DEAL
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION.
I JUST THINK WE SHOULD GET THE
RECORD STRAIGHT ABOUT WHAT OUR
INVOLVEMENT IS.
IT'S NOT AS LARGE AS THE
PREVIOUS SPEAKER SAID, BUT IT
IS SIGNIFICANT.
IT'S WITHIN MY OPINION IT'S
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE WAR
POWERS RESOLUTION.
I'M NOW PLEASED TO YIELD TWO
MINUTES TO MY FRIEND FROM
CALIFORNIA, THE GENTLELADY
FROM, MS. LEE.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM SPEAKER.
FOR YIELDING.
LET ME THANK OUR RANKING MEMBER
AND LET ME JUST SAY FIRST OF
ALL, I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION, BUT
THIS DEBATE IS LONG OVERDUE.
ON MARCH 30, MYSELF, ALONG WITH
CONGRESSWOMAN WOOLSEY,
GRIJALVA, HONDA AND WATERS,
SENT A LETTER TO SPEAKER
BOEHNER AND MAJORITY LEADER
CANTOR THAT THEY HOLD A VOTE TO
CONTINUE THE USE OF MILITARY
FORCE IN LIBYA.
LET ME ASK FOR UNANIMOUS
CONSENT, PLEASE, TO INSERT THE
LETTER INTO THE RECORD.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
: THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
I'D LIKE --
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I'D LIKE TO READ PARTS OF THE
LETTER.
THIS WAS DATED MARCH 30, MIND
YOU -- WE THE UNDERSIGNED
MEMBERS RANK TO REQUEST THE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IMMEDIATELY
TAKE STEPS TO HOLD A DEBATE AND
FLOOR VOTE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE THE USE
OF MILITARY FORCE IN LIBYA.
WE FIGHT THE CONSTITUTION,
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.
WE GO ON TO SAY THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAS NOW BEEN ENGAGED
MILITARILY IN LIBYA SINCE MARCH
19, 2001.
WHILE WE FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT A
ROBUST DEBATE AND AN UP OR DOWN
VOTE SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED IN
ADVANCE TO THE MILITARY ACTION
IN LIBYA, IT IS WITHOUT
QUESTION THAT SUCH MEASURES ARE
STILL URGENTLY REQUIRED.
BEYOND CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITIES IN THESE MATTERS,
THESE DELIBERATIONS ARE
ESSENTIAL TO ENSURING THAT WE
AS A COUNTRY FULLY DEBATE AND
UNDERSTAND THE STRATEGIC GOALS,
COSTS AND LONG-TERM
CONSEQUENCES OF MILITARY ACTION
IN LIBYA.
THAT'S ONE PARAGRAPH OF THIS
SENTENCE.
NOW, MADAM SPEAKER, OVER 60
DAYS SINCE OUR LETTER, THE
SPEAKER HAS SUDDENLY HASTILY
SCHEDULED A RESOLUTION IN A
RESOLUTION THAT DOES NOTHING
BUT POLITICIZE IN AN EXTREMELY
SERIOUS AND WHAT SHOULD BE A
NONPARTISAN ISSUE.
THE WAR POWERS ACT FORBIDS
ARMED FORCES FROM ENGAGING IN
MILITARY ACTION -- MAY I HAVE
AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE?
I YIELD THE
GENTLELADY AN ADDITIONAL
MINUTE.
THE
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED FOR
ONE MINUTE.
IT FORE GIDS ARMED
FORCES FROM ENGAGING IN FOREIGN
LANDS MORE THAN 60 DAYS WITHOUT
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OR
WITHOUT MILITARY FORCE OR
WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR.
WE'VE BEEN ACTIVELY FIGHTING
FOR 77 DAYS.
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT OUR
MISSION IN LIBYA.
AND LET ME JUST SAY, I THINK
OUR PRESIDENT, WHO HAS DONE A
COMMENDABLE JOB IN HANDLING THE
VERY COMPLEX RANGE OF FOREIGN
POLICY ISSUES, BUT THIS IS
ABOUT ANY PRESIDENT, ANY
ADMINISTRATION.
IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT.
IT'S ABOUT STANDING UP FOR
CONGRESSIONAL POWER GRANTED IN
THE CONSTITUTION.
AND AS OUR RANKING MEMBER SAID,
THE KUCINICH AMENDMENT IS THE
AMENDMENT THAT ADDRESSES THIS
HEAD ON IN A VERY HONEST AND
DIRECT WAY.
SO WE SHOULD REJECT THIS
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
RESOLUTION.
IT'S A RESOLUTION THAT HAS JUST
COME UP.
WE ASK AGAIN THE SPEAKER AND
MAJORITY LEADER ON MARCH 30 TO
CONDUCT A DEBATE AND AN UP OR
DOWN VOTE.
AND WE CONCLUDE IN OUR LETTER
THAT IT'S OUR POSITION THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL
OBLIGATION TO SEEK SPECIFIC
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR
OFFENSIVE MILITARY ACTION AS HE
SHOULD HAVE DONE WITH REGARD TO
U.S. MILITARY ENGAGEMENT IN
LIBYA.
FOR YIELDING.
THANK YOU, AGAIN, AND THANK YOU
THE
GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA.
THANK YOU,
MADAM SPEAKER.
I'M PLEASED TO YIELD THREE
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA, MR. CONNOLLY, A
VALUED MEMBER OF OUR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
FLORIDA.
I RISE RESPECTFULLY IN SUPPORT
OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 292, WHICH
REASSERTS THE CONGRESSIONAL WAR
MAKING AUTHORITY OF SECTION 8,
ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE
WITH OUR -- MY RANKING MEMBER
OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE FOR WHOM I HAVE
ENORMOUS RESPECT.
I DON'T THINK THIS RESOLUTION
TAKES GRATUITOUS POTSHOTS AT
STATES.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
I THINK IT IS A THOUGHTFUL EXPO
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEMS IN
FRONT OF US.
IT BUYS THE PRESIDENT TIME TO
COMPLY WITHOUT THE DISRUPTION
THAT THE KUCINICH RESOLUTION
WOULD CAUSE, NOT ONLY -- NOT
ONLY IN LIBYA BUT THE
RAMIFICATIONS FOR NATO
RELATIONSHIPS AND IN THE ARAB
DEMOCRATIC SPRING.
THE RESOLUTION PROHIBITS THE --
DECLARES CONGRESS HAS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE TO
WITHHOLD FUNDING FOR ANY
FORCES.
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF U.S. ARMED
IT REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATION
TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ANY RECORDS
REGARDING CONGRESSIONAL
COMMUNICATION IN OPERATION
ODYSSEY DAWN IN LIBYA WITHIN 14
DAYS OF PASSAGE.
MADAM SPEAKER, SINCE BEFORE THE
PASSAGE OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION IN 1973, THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, REGARDLESS OF
PRESIDENT OR LEADER, HAS ARGUED
THERE ARE INHERENT
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS CONTAINED
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE
TO THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER
IN CHIEF.
IF ONE ARGUES THAT SECTION 2,
ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION
GRANTS THE PRESIDENT INHERENT
POWERS AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
THEN LOGICALLY ONE OUGHT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE CONGRESS ALSO HAS
INHERENT POWERS AS THE ONLY
ENTITY EXPRESSLY GRANTED THE
POWER TO DECLARE WAR IN THAT
DOCUMENT.
ACCORDING TO THE HOUSE REPORT
REGARDING WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION, CONSULTATION MEANS
THAT THE DECISION IS PENDING ON
A PROBLEM AND THAT MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS ARE BEING ASKED BY THE
PRESIDENT FOR THEIR ADVICE AND
OPINIONS AND IN APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES THEIR APPROVAL OF
THE ACTION CONTEMPLATED.
THIS REPORT LANGUAGE MAKES THE
INTENTION OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION CLEAR.
CONSULTATION OUGHT TO BE
ACTIVE, NOT MERELY INFORMATIVE.
IN THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION,
THE TERM HOSTILITIES WAS USED
DELIBERATELY INSTEAD OF ARMED
CONFLICT PRECISELY BECAUSE THE
FORMER PHRASE -- BROADER
NATURE.
CLEAR.
THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION IS
CONGRESS MUST HAVE A ROLE WITH
REGARD TO THE USE AND
DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. FORCES.
THE EXTENT OF THAT ROLE HAS
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF DEBATE AS
OLD AS THE UNITED STATES
ITSELF.
TO GO ANY FURTHER, A STRICT
CONSTRUCTIONIST WOULD ARGUE
THAT THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
ITSELF LIMITS CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY.
THE ACT OF EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING
THE NEED FOR A STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK TO CODIFY CONGRESS'
POWERS IN THE CONSTITUTION IN
FACT DELUTZ THOSE POWERS AND
MAY HAVE THE UNINTENDED EFFECT
OF ENHANCING THE EXECUTIVE'S
POWERS DIRECTLY AT THE EXPENSE
OF CONGRESS.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THIS RESOLUTION, HOUSE
RESOLUTION 292, TO ASSERT
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND TO
PRESIDENT TIME WITH
I YIELD BACK.
WHICH TO COMPLY.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND
TO MY FRIEND'S ARGUMENTS.
I AGREE WITH EVERY WORD HE SAID
EXCEPT THAT CONGRESS -- THIS IS
A MANIFESTATION OF THE CONGRESS
EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY.
THIS IS AN ADVOCATION OF
CONGRESS EXERCISING ITS
AUTHORITY BECAUSE NOWHERE IN
THIS RESOLUTION IS THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
OPERATIONS THAT WE WANT TO
AUTHORIZE, THAT WE SHOULD BE
AUTHORIZING IF WE THINK THEY'RE
APPROPRIATE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO THINKS
THIS IS APPROPRIATE.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ASK FOR
THEM TO REQUEST OF US
AUTHORIZATION.
WE HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL POWER
TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO AND THIS
RESOLUTION FAILS TO TAKE THAT
OPTION.
SO I THINK THE GENTLEMAN MAKES
A WONDERFUL CASE FOR WHY THIS
RESOLUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
STEP UP TO OUR RESPONSIBILITIES
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, AND WITH
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD FOUR
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. SHERMAN.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FOUR MINUTES.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME AND
I'VE NEVER COME TO THIS FLOOR
FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING AN
INNOCUOUS RESOLUTION.
IN FACT, I VOTED FOR EVERY PIECE
OF INNOCUOUS LEGISLATION AND
POST OFFICE RENAMING IN THE LAST
15 YEARS AS FAR AS I CAN
REMEMBER.
AND THIS IS INNOCUOUS
LEGISLATION.
FIRST IT STARTS WITH A SENSE OF
CONGRESS ABOUT OUR OPINION AS TO
WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE
DONE.
IT HAS A SENTENCE THAT PURPORTS
TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM
PUTTING GROUND FORCES IN LIBYA,
BUT IN FACT JUST STATES THAT
THAT'S OUR POLICY, IT'S
CERTAINLY NOT DESIGNED TO
PROHIBIT THE PRESIDENT FROM
DOING SO, IT JUST SAYS IT'S OUR
OPINION THAT HE SHOULDN'T.
AND, OH, BY THE WAY, IN THE
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL WE
HAVE REAL LEGISLATION THAT
PROHIBITS PUTTING GROUND FORCES
IN LIBYA.
IT THEN GOES ON TO ASK THAT A
NUMBER OF QUESTIONS BE ANSWERED.
AND THERE ARE SOME WHO THINK,
OH, THAT'S IMPORTANT.
THOSE WHO THINK THAT THE
QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED IN THIS
RESOLUTION ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO
GET US USEFUL INFORMATION ARE
INSULTING THE FACULTY OF THE LAW
SCHOOLS OF AMERICA.
BECAUSE BOTH THE PENTAGON AND
THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVE
LAWYERS CAPABLE OF WRITING LONG
AND MEANINGLESS ANSWERS TO EVERY
QUESTION WE PROPOUND.
AND AS FOR GETTING DOCUMENTS,
SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS DEMANDED
WE ALREADY HAVE AND THE REST
THOSE SAME LAWYERS WILL BE
WRITING LONG DOCUMENTS ABOUT
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
SO WE HAVE HERE A DOCUMENT THAT
AT MOST IS JUST THE QUESTIONS
FOR THE RECORD THAT THE
CHAIRWOMAN OF OUR COMMITTEE
ALLOWS ME TO ADD AT THE END OF
SO MANY HEARINGS.
HARDLY EARTH SHAKING.
CERTAINLY INNOCUOUS.
BUT, OK, SO IT'S INNOCUOUS OR IS
IT?
THIS IS INNOCUOUS LEGISLATION
THAT PLAYS A PARTICULAR ROLE IN
AVOIDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE
OF THIS CONGRESS.
IT ALLOWS US TO SIDE STEP THE
WAR POWERS ACT, IT GIVES COVER
TO THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO
.
AUTHORIZE OR REFUSE TO AUTHORIZE
IT SAYS, WE'RE AN ADVISORY BODY,
WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS SO THAT
WE CAN GIVE GOOD ADVICE, WE GIVE
YOU -- WE'LL GIVE THE PRESIDENT
SOME ADVICE, IT IS PART OF THE
TREND OF AN AGGRANDIZING
EXECUTIVE AND A DERELICT
CONGRESS, A CONGRESS THAT ALMOST
IS COMPLICIT IN THIS SLOW
PROCESS BY WHICH WE ARE NOT
LEGISLATORS, WE ARE NOT
DECIDERS, WE INQUIRE AND WE
ADVISE.
THE CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR BUT
THE WAR POWERS ACT IS MORE
CLEAR.
THE PRESIDENT MUST ASK FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND
WE HAVE TO ACT.
WE HAVE TO REVIEW THE PROPOSALS
AND I BELIEVE OUR RANKING MEMBER
WOULD HAVE ONE, THAT WOULD SAY,
OK, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO
AUTHORIZE?
UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS?
WHAT DEMANDS WILL WE MAKE OF OUR
ALLIES IN LIBYA?
TO PERHAPS TURN OVER TO US OR AT
LEAST DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES
FROM THE AL QAEDA OPERATIVES IN
THEIR MIDST, ARE WE GOING TO
LIMIT THE DURATION, ARE WE GOING
TO LIMIT THE SCOPE, ARE WE GOING
TO OPPOSE LIMITS ON THE TOTAL
COST?
WITH THIS RESOLUTION WE CAN
AVOID ALL THOSE QUESTIONS.
WE CAN AVOID DEMANDING A
WITHDRAWAL, WE CAN AVOID
LIMITING THE AUTHORIZATION AND
WE CAN ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO
CONTINUE TO WRITE THE BLANK
CHECK THAT APPARENTLY HE
BELIEVES HE HAS AND WE CAN DO IT
ALL WHILE DISASSOCIATING
OURSELVES WITH ANYTHING
UNPOPULAR THAT EVER HAPPENS OVER
THE SKIES OF LIBYA.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR US TO
SHIRK OUR RESPONSIBILITIES.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO ACT AS
A POLICYMAKING BODY.
I ASK THE GENTLEMAN FOR ONE MORE
MINUTE.
MADAM SPEAKER, HOW
MUCH TIME IS REMAINING ON EACH
SIDE?
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA HAS 4
1/2 MINUTES REMAINING.
I YIELD THE
GENTLEMAN AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR AN
ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
THANK YOU.
NOW IS THE TIME FOR US TO PLAY
PROVIDES.
THE ROLE THAT THE WAR POWERS ACT
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AN IMMEDIATE
SHORT-TERM EMERGENCY SITUATION,
IT HAS GONE ON FOR MUCH LONGER
THAN 60 DAYS.
IT SHOULD NOT GO FURTHER.
NOW, 208 MEMBERS OF THIS
CONGRESS VOTED FOR MY AMENDMENT
YESTERDAY TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD
NOT EXPEND FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF
THE WAR POWERS ACT.
AND THEY WERE WILLING TO VOTE
FOR IT EVEN THOUGH I PUT IT ON A
BILL TO WHICH IT DIDN'T REALLY
PERTAIN.
THANK YOU FOR THOSE VOTES.
BUT NOW, PLEASE COME BACK HERE
AND SAY IT'S TIME TO ENFORCE THE
WAR POWERS ACT, IT'S TIME NOT TO
DODGE THE WAR POWERS ACT, IT'S
TIME FOR OUR POLICY OVER THE
SKIES IN LIBYA TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE PRESIDENT IN CONGRESS,
NOT THE PRESIDENT ADVISED BY
CONGRESS.
VOTE NO ON THIS RESOLUTION,
DON'T USE IT AS A SIDE STEP, GO
BACK TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND
SAY YOU ARE FOR VOTING EITHER
FOR A WITHDRAWAL FROM LIBYA OR
FOR FULL AUTHORIZATION OR FOR A
LIMITED AUTHORIZATION.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA.
THANK YOU,
MADAM SPEAKER.
I'M PLEASED TO YIELD FOUR
MINUTES TO MY FRIEND AND
COLLEAGUE FROM FLORIDA, MR.
YOUNG, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DEFENSE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA VOICED
FOR FOUR MINUTES.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
THANK MY FRIEND AND THE CHAIRMAN
FOR YIELDING ME THIS TIME
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
BOEHNER RESOLUTION.
IT DEALS SPECIFICALLY,
ESPECIALLY ON PAGE 4 AND PAGE 7
OF THE RESOLUTION, SPECIFICALLY
WITH THE CONSTITUTION.
AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
ADMINISTRATION AND THE CONGRESS
TO WORK TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY IN
MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, AS MY
COLLEAGUE HAS SAID, MY
RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROVIDE FOR
THE FUNDING FOR ANY MILITARY
OPERATION THAT IS APPROVED BY
THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND
APPROVED BY THE CONGRESS.
ON THE MATTER OF LIBYA, ON APRIL
1 I SENT TO THE PRESIDENT A
LETTER TRYING TO EXERCISE MY
RESPONSIBILITY AS CHAIRMAN, A
LETTER EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR
OUR TROOPS BUT ASKING CERTAIN
QUESTIONS.
HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THIS WILL
LAST?
HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK IT WILL
COST?
HAVE WE MADE?
HOW MUCH OF A FUTURE COMMITMENT
WHAT WILL BE THE SOURCE OF THE
FUNDING FOR THIS OPERATION?
AND HERE MORE THAN TWO MONTHS
LATER, STILL THIS OFFICIAL
REQUEST FROM THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE REMAINS UNANSWERED BY
THE ADMINISTRATION AND THAT'S
JUST NOT RIGHT.
THE CONSTITUTION IS PRETTY CLEAR
, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9 OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN PART SAYS, NO
MONEY SHALL BE DRAWN FROM THE
TREASURY BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF
APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW.
AND A REGULAR STATEMENT AND A
CURRENT ON THE RECEIPT AND
EXPENDITURES OF ALL PUBLIC MONEY
SHOULD BE PUBLISHED FROM TIME TO
TIME.
WELL, SO FAR ON THE LIBYA ISSUE
THIS ARTICLE 1, SECTION HAS
BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED -- SECTION
9 HAS BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED.
IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.
IT'S A VIOLATION AND IN MY
OPINION CONTRA VENTS THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
WHEN I ASKED FOR THAT
INFORMATION, THE ONLY THING I'VE
BEEN ABLE TO GET ON THE COST OF
THIS LIBYAN OPERATION IS IN BITS
AND PIECES WE HAVE ADDED AND
$750 MILLION ALREADY SPENT ON
THE LIBYAN MISSION.
THEY'VE NOT CONFIRMED THAT BUT
WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER IN OUR OWN
EDITION BITS AND PIECES ON THAT.
BUT AGAIN WE HAVE RECEIVED NO
REQUEST WHATSOEVER.
WHERE IS THE MONEY TO PAY FOR
THE LIBYAN OPERATION COMING
FROM?
WHAT ACCOUNT IS IT COMING FROM?
IS IT COMING OUT OF PERSONNEL
COSTS, SOLDIERS' PAY?
IS IT COMING OUT OF MEDICAL
CARE, IS IT COMING OUT OF
TRAINING FOR OUR TROOPS?
WHAT ACCOUNTS ARE BEING USED?
WE HAVE A RIGHT AND AN
OBLIGATION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION TO KNOW THE ANSWER
TO THAT.
AND SPEAKER BOEHNER'S RESOLUTION
CALLS VERY SHARP ATTENTION TO
THAT ISSUE.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
WE PASS -- THAT THE HOUSE PASSES
THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION AND LET
THE PRESIDENT KNOW THAT WE ARE
NOT GOING TO ALLOW HIM TO IGNORE
THE CONSTITUTION ANY FURTHER
WHEN IT COMES TO WAR POWERS WHEN
IT COMES TO SPENDING FOR THE
WELFARE OF OUR TROOPS, WHEN IT
COMES TO APPROPRIATING MONEY FOR
THE DEFENSE OF OUR NATION AND
FOR THE DEFENSE OF OUR ALLIES.
SO, MADAM SPEAKER, I DO ASK THAT
THE LETTER THAT I SENT TO
PRESIDENT, WHICH HAS REMAINED
UNANSWERED FOR MORE THAN TWO
MONTHS, THAT IT BE INCLUDED AT
THIS POINT IN THE RECORD SO THAT
MY COLLEAGUES CAN SEE THAT IT
WAS A VERY, VERY LEGITIMATE AND
VERY CONCILIATORY REQUEST AS
BASICALLY AN OFFER TO SUPPORT
OUR TROOPS AND ANY LEGITIMATE
ACTIVITY.
SO WE'RE STILL WAITING, WE'RE
STANDING BY HOPING THAT WE DO
HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT VERY
SOON AND MAYBE SHORTLY AFTER WE
PASS THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION.
AND I THANK THE CHAIRLADY FOR
THE TIME AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
YES, MADAM SPEAKER,
I'M PLEASED TO YIELD ONE MINUTE
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA, MR.
KUCINICH.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
I THANK MR.
BERMAN.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT IN
DEFENSE OF MR. BURTON'S
DESCRIPTION OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT
ALREADY IN LIBYA TO PUT INTO THE
RECORD AN ARTICLE FROM THE
GUARDIAN U.K. DATED MAY 22 WHICH
TALKS ABOUT THE UNITED STATES
HAVING 50% OF THE SHIPS, 50% OF
THE PLANES, 66% OF THE
PERSONNEL, 93% OF THE CRUISE
MISSILES.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
AND I JUST WANT TO
SAY BRIEFLY, MADAM SPEAKER, THAT
THIS ARTICLE THAT WAS WRITTEN
ABOUT 10 DAYS AGO, IF IT'S TRUE
IT POINTS OUT THAT WE'VE
UNDERTAKEN A HUGE MISSION
THROUGH THE UNITED STATES IN THE
NAME OF NATO NOW WITHOUT COMING
TO THE CONGRESS, THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE DEBATING, OF COURSE, BUT
IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE
INFORMATION THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS COMMUNICATED
AS OF LATE TO THE CONGRESS, IF
THAT SUGGESTS A LIGHTER
FOOTPRINT THEN THERE SHOULD BE
NO DIFFICULTY IN PULLING OUT OF
LIBYA IN 15 DAYS AND IF THERE IS
WE NEED TO START ASKING
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW DEEPLY
ENMESHED WE ARE IF OUR -- WE
ARE, IF OUR PARTICIPATION IS
TRULY NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA.
THANK YOU,
MADAM SPEAKER.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD TWO MINUTES TO
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR.
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE,
RECEIVERS, A MEMBER OF THE
AND A LIEUTENANT COLONEL IN THE
UNITED STATES ARMY WITH THE
DISTINGUISHED 26-YEAR MILITARY
CAREER.
STIVERS, SORRY.
THAT'S ALL RIGHT,
MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIRWOMAN
FOR YIELDING ME TIME.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
SPEAKER'S RESOLUTION.
WITH 26 YEARS OF MILITARY
SERVICE, MY EXPERIENCE HAS
TAUGHT ME MANY LESSONS AND THOSE
LESSONS GIVE ME PAUSE AND
CONCERN WITH REGARD TO THE
KUCINICH RESOLUTION.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE PRUDENT,
THOUGHTFUL AND MEASURED IN THE
WAY WE END OUR INVOLVEMENT IN
LIBYA AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
THE KUCINICH RESOLUTION DOES
THAT.
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT DID
NOT FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURES
ANSWERED SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED
CONGRESS TO DEBATE AND DECIDE
THE ISSUE, A 15-DAY WITHDRAWAL
WOULD CAUSE OTHER ISSUES.
CERTAINLY THE U.S. IS PROVIDING
CURRENT -- CURRENTLY THE U.S. IS
PROVIDING CERTAIN REFUELING
LOGISTICS AND OTHER SUPPORT
FUNCTIONS FOR OUR NATO ALLIES
AND UNFORTUNATELY YOU CREATE A
15-DAYTIMELINE, THOSE ALLIES
MIGHT NOT HAVE TIME TO PLAN OR
BUILD CAPACITY TO RESOURCE THEIR
PLAN AND EFFECTIVELY CONTINUE
THEIR OPERATIONS.
I DON'T AGREE WITH HOW THE
PRESIDENT'S HANDLED OUR CURRENT
MILITARY MISSION IN LIBYA AND I
DON'T THINK HE'S CURRENTLY
EXPLAINED THE NATIONAL SECURITY
INTEREST OF OUR MISSION, HOWEVER
I THINK THE TROOPS THAT HAVE
BEEN CALLED TO ACTION HAVE
PERFORMED ADMIRABLY AND I THANK
THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE.
BUT NOW WE'RE INVOLVED AND A
TIMEFRAME FOR WITHDRAWAL IN THE
KUCINICH RESOLUTION WOULD HURT
OUR NATO ALLIES, THE SAME ALLIES
WHO HAVE STOOD BY US IN
AFGHANISTAN FOR 10 YEARS.
THEY DESERVE OUR COOPERATION IN
ANY TRANSITION.
I SUPPORT THE SPEAKER'S
ALTERNATIVE IN LIBYA, I THINK IT
ASKS TOUGH QUESTIONS OF THE
PRESIDENT, REQUIRES HIM TO
EXPLAIN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
INTERESTS AND JUSTIFY A STRATEGY
PEOPLE.
TO CONGRESS AND TO THE AMERICAN
IF THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T ANSWER
THOSE QUESTIONS WITHIN 14 DAYS,
I BELIEVE CONGRESS SHOULD
CONTINUE TO ASSERT ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.
THEREFORE I SUPPORT THE
SPEAKER'S ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION
AS A WAY FORWARD IN LIBYA AND IN
RESPONSE TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE GET
INFORMATION TO MAKE TIMELY
DECISIONS.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
YES, MADAM SPEAKER,
TO YIELD MYSELF 15 SECONDS IN
RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER
, WHAT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT IS WHAT
THE RESOLUTION DOESN'T TELL US.
IF THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T PROVIDE
US THE INFORMATION WITHIN 14
DAYS, WHAT ARE WE DOING?
THE RESOLUTION IS SILENT.
THIS IS A RESOLUTION FILLED
WITH THINGS WE WANT AND ARE
ASKING FOR AND DEMANDING AND
ARE RUMBLING ABOUT WITH NO
CONSEQUENCES.
I YIELD A MINUTE TO THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA, MS.
WOOLSEY.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
FORMER MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING.
MADAM SPEAKER, THIS IS A HERE
WE GO AGAIN MOMENT ON THE HOUSE
FLOOR.
TWO WEEKS AGO THE KUCINICH
AMENDMENT PASSED THE HOUSE
OVERWHELMINGLY WITH A TOTAL
BIPARTISAN VOTE BECAUSE IT WAS
THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
BUT, NO, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE CAN'T STAND TO LET US
HAVE AN INITIATIVE, THE RIGHT
THING TO DO THAT THEY REALLY
COULD AGREE TO.
SO HERE WE ARE TODAY DEBATING
THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION TO TAKE
THE AIR OUT OF THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS OR THE WHITE HOUSE HAS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR
POWERS ACT AND BEGGING THEM TO
KNOW THAT IT IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY.
MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE FOOLED
INTO VOTING FOR THE BOEHNER
AMENDMENT, THE RESOLUTION,
BECAUSE IT DELAYS ACTION.
WE SHOULD VOTE FOR THE KUCINICH
RESOLUTION THAT INSISTS THAT
THE CONGRESS RECLAIM ITS
AUTHORITY, TAKE ITS
RESPONSIBILITY AND DO THE RIGHT
THING REGARDING LIBYA.
VOTE NO ON THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION.
THE
GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA.
THE GENTLELADY CONTINUES TO
RESERVE.
I RESERVE THE
RIGHT TO CLOSE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
HAVE NO REQUEST FOR TIME AND
PREPARED TO YIELD BACK IF THE
GENTLELADY IS.
I WILL USE UP
OUR REMAINING MINUTE OR SO.
I WILL YIELD BACK
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
YIELDS BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS
TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA IS
RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MADAM SPEAKER.
I WAS -- WILL TAKE UP THE REST
OF OUR TIME.
MADAM SPEAKER, THE RESOLUTION
OFFERED BY THE SPEAKER IS THE
RESPONSIBLE APPROACH.
IT EXPRESSES CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT.
IT AFFORDS ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY
TO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH US
IN CONGRESS TO ADVANCE U.S.
INTERESTS IN THE REGION.
AND I HOPE THAT THE PRESIDENT
IS LISTENING AND THAT THIS
RESOLUTION WILL SERVE AS A
WAKE-UP CALL LEADING TO
IMMEDIATE CONSULTATION.
AND FRANKLY WE HAVE NOT HAD
THAT AS WE WOULD LIKE.
IF IN 14 DAYS, AS IT SAYS IN
THIS RESOLUTION, THE PRESIDENT
HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUEST INCLUDED IN THE
RESOLUTION, THEN THIS HOUSE
WILL CONSIDER THE NEXT STEPS.
AND I URGE, THEREFORE, A YES
VOTE ON THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION,
A RESPONSIBLE APPROACH TO THE
PRESIDENT TO WORK WITH US AND A
PLEA TO GIVE US THE INFORMATION
THAT WE REQUESTED.
WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
THE GENTLEWOMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME YIELDS BACK
THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.
-- THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK
THE BALANCE OF HER TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 10 MINUTES.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I MAY
CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
RESOLUTION.
RISE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS PROVIDED ADEQUATE
JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR MILITARY
OPERATIONS IN LIBYA, NOR WHY
CONTINUED HUMANITARIAN INTEREST
IS IN OUR INTEREST.
MORE THAN TWO WEEKS AGO I SENT
A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT
OUTLINING OUR CONCERNS, OUR
NATO ROLE, THE ADMINISTRATION
IS ASKING THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL
$400 BILLION IN CUTS.
TO DATE, I'VE NOT RECEIVED A
REPLY.
YET, I BELIEVE THAT FORCING THE
HASTY WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. FORCES
FROM NATO OPERATIONS IN LIBYA
WOULD EMBOLDEN GADDAFI AND
GRATEFUL DAMAGE OUR CREDIBILITY
WITH OUR ALLIES.
CONSEQUENTLY, SUCH A MOVE COULD
HAVE DRAMATIC, NEGATIVE, SECOND
ORDER EFFECTS ON OPERATIONS
THAT ARE CRITICAL TO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY.
SUCH AS OPERATIONS IN
AFGHANISTAN.
I BELIEVE SPEAKER BOEHNER'S
RESOLUTION ADDRESSES MUCH OF
THE FRUSTRATION SHARED BY
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY.
THE RESOLUTION RE-ENFORCES
PROVISIONS IN THE RECENTLY
PASSED NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT PROHIBITING
THE ESCALATION OF U.S.
PARTICIPATION WITHOUT EXPRESSED
AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS.
THIS RESOLUTION REQUIRES THE
PRESIDENT TO CLEARLY OUTLINE
THE STRATEGIC INTEREST THAT
JUSTIFY INTERVENTION IN LIBYA.
TO EXPLAIN HOW THE OPERATIONAL
MEANS BEING EMPLOYED WILL
SECURE THEM.
IT REQUIRES A PROMPT AND
TRANSPARENT ACCOUNTING OF COSTS
AS WELL AS INFORMATION
REGARDING THE CAPACITY AND
INTENTION OF THE REBEL FORCES.
THIS INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL
TO ALLOW CONGRESS TO EXECUTE
ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED
OVERSIGHT ROLE OF MILITARY
OPERATIONS.
AGAIN, I FULLY AGREE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
DISTURBINGLY DISMISSIVE OF
CONGRESS' ROLE IN THE
AUTHORIZATION OF MILITARY
FORCE.
BUT I ALSO FEEL THAT PASSING
THIS RESOLUTION IS THE MOST
EFFECTIVE WAY OF HOLDING THE
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE WITHOUT
SACRIFICING OTHER VITAL
NATIONAL INTERESTS THAT WOULD
BE DAMAGED BY A PRECIPITOUS
WITHDRAWAL FROM NATO
OPERATIONS.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
IS RECOGNIZED FOR 10 MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I YIELD MYSELF SUCH TIME AS I
MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
I DO THANK SPEAKER BOEHNER AND
REPRESENTATIVE KUCINICH FOR
BRINGING THESE RESOLUTIONS AND
BRINGING THIS ISSUE TO THE
FLOOR.
I BELIEVE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD DEBATE, DISCUSS
AND ULTIMATELY EXPRESS ITS
OPINION ON.
WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT.
WE ARE NOW PAST 90 DAYS THAT
THIS MISSION HAS BEEN GOING ON
IN LIBYA.
I PREFER A MUCH CLEANER
RESOLUTION THAT SIMPLY CAME OUT
AND MADE A RESOLUTION OF
APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT'S
MISSION AND OF THE MISSION THAT
WE AND NATO HAVE UNDERTAKEN IN
LIBYA AND GIVE A CHANCE TO VOTE
AN UP OR DOWN.
MR. KUCINICH'S IS MUCH MORE
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT'S A RESOLUTION OF
DISAPPROVAL.
AGAIN, IT GIVES US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE THE ISSUE
AND EXPRESS THE WILL OF
CONGRESS.
I OPPOSE MR. BOEHNER'S
RESOLUTION.
I ALSO OPPOSE MR. KUCINICH'S
RESOLUTION BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK WE SHOULD PULL AWAY FROM
THIS MISSION, SHOULD PULL OUT
OF WHAT NATO IS DOING AND THE
VERY IMPORTANT WORK THAT'S
GOING ON IN LIBYA.
MR. BOEHNER'S RESOLUTION
DOESN'T DO ANY OF THAT.
IT BOLDLY STATES THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS NOT MADE A CASE
FOR THE MISSION IN LIBYA.
I VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH
THAT ASSESSMENT.
NOW, I WILL AGREE, AND MR.
MCKEON AND I SHARE THE
FRUSTRATION THAT PRIOR TO THE
LAUNCHING OF THIS MISSION THERE
WAS INADEQUATE OF COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN THIS PRESIDENT AND THIS
CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT AND
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR REASONS
OF GETTING INTO THAT MISSION.
SINCE THAT TIME THE PRESIDENT
HAS MADE IT CLEAR WHY WE WENT
INTO LIBYA.
WE HAD A UNIQUE SITUATION.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
AMERICAN MIRBLET SHOULD
INTERVENE IN EVERY CONFLICT IN
EVERY COUNTRY.
IT SHOULDN'T CONFLICT IN ALMOST
ANY OF THEM.
IT TAKES A UNIQUE SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES TO CALL FOR THAT
INTERVENTION.
IN LIBYA WE HAD, I BELIEVE,
THAT UNIQUE SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES.
NUMBER ONE, WE HAD BROAD
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
THE U.N., NATO, THE ARAB
LEAGUE, ALL LOOKED AT THAT
SITUATION AND SAID INTERVENTION
WAS NECESSARY.
NUMBER TWO, WE HAD A CLEAR
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS.
THERE WAS NO DOUBT AT THE TIME
WE INTERVENED THAT IF WE HAD
NOT MOAMMAR GADDAFI WOULD HAVE
SLAUGHTERED HIS OWN PEOPLE AND
REASSERTED CONTROL OVER LIBYA.
HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WAS WHAT
HE WAS GOING TO DO.
IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE PEOPLE
RISING UP FOR THE LEGITIMATE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN
THEIR GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE
THE POWER AND THE FORCE TO STOP
HIM.
WE DID.
IF WE HAD NOT ACTED THERE WAS
NO QUESTION THAT MUAMMAR
GADDAFI WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF
LIBYA AND WE WOULD HAVE SHARED
AT LEAST SOME PIECE OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY.
WE IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE
THE POWER, THE FORCE TO STOP A
HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE AND
CHOSE NOT TO ACT, AND THAT'S
ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL
ELEMENTS IN DECIDING WHETHER OR
NOT WE SHOULD INTERVENE.
CAN WE INTERVENE IN A
SUCCESSFUL WAY?
YES, THERE ARE MANY COUNTRIES
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD THAT FACE
CRISES RIGHT NOW.
IN SYRIA, IN THE SUDAN, IN
CONGO.
WHOLE BUNCH OF PLACES.
MOST OF THOSE PLACES THERE IS
NO CLEAR MILITARY MISSION THAT
WE COULD ACCOMPLISH AND
ACHIEVE.
IN LIBYA THERE WAS.
IF WHICH INTERVENED WE COULD
STOP GADDAFI FROM REGAINING
CONTROL OF THIS COUNTRY.
AT THE TIME WE UNDERSTOOD THERE
WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT
WOULD MEAN HE WOULD BE DRIVEN
FROM POWER IMMEDIATELY, BUT WE
COULD AT LEAST STOP HIM FROM
DOING THAT.
IT WAS A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
THAT OUR ACTIONS COULD PREVENT.
I THINK IT MADE SENSE AND I
THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS CLEARLY
ARTICULATED THAT.
FOR CONGRESS TO PASS A
RESOLUTION SAYING THEY HAVE NO
EARTHLY IDEA WHAT THE PRESIDENT
IS DOING IN LIBYA SIMPLY MEANS
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING
ATTENTION FOR THE LAST COUPLE
IT'S BEEN MADE CLEAR.
OF MONTHS.
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT
WE ASK THE PRESIDENT TO
REGULARLY KEEP IN TOUCH WITH
US, LET US KNOW WHERE THE
MISSION IS GOING.
I SUPPORTED THE RESOLUTION THAT
SAID NO GROUND TROOPS IN LIBYA.
I THINK THAT'S A STEP TOO FAR.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED
MILITARILY.
I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
THE PART OF THE RESOLUTION THAT
I OPPOSE IS THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS MADE NO NATIONAL SECURITY
CASE FOR WHY WE SHOULD BE
INVOLVED IN LIBYA.
I BELIEVE THAT HE HAS.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SUPPORT
A RESOLUTION SAYING OTHERWISE.
TO HAVE CYRIMLY ALLOWED THE
LIBYA -- LIBYA TO FALL APART
AND NOT HELPED A PEOPLE THAT WE
COULD CLEARLY HELP, THAT WERE
LEGITIMATELY CALLING FOR
GREATER FREEDOM AND GREATER
OPPORTUNITY I THINK WOULD HAVE
BEEN A MISTAKE.
SO I WILL OPPOSE THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION.
I WILL ALSO OPPOSE THE KUCINICH
RESOLUTION BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK WE SHOULD PULL OUT OF THE
MISSION.
AGAIN, I THANK ALL THOSE
INVOLVED FOR BRINGING THE
DEBATE TO THE HOUSE FLOOR SO WE
CAN HAVE THE DEBATE, SO WE IN
CONGRESS CAN ASSERT OUR
AUTHORITY AND EXPRESS OUR
OPINION ON THIS VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE.
WITH THAT I RESERVE THE BALANCE
OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD 1 1/2 MINUTES TO MY
FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TACTICAL ERROR AND LAND FORCES,
MR. BARTLETT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND,
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED FOR A MINUTE AND A
HALF.
THANK YOU FOR
YIELDING, AND I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION.
I'M NOT HERE TODAY TO ARGUE
WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE IN
LIBYA.
THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR ANOTHER
DAY.
WHAT I'M HERE TODAY CONCERNED
WITH IS HOW WE GOT INTO LIBYA,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS A VERY
IMPORTANT PRECEDENT.
WE WENT INTO LIBYA ON MARCH 19,
OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN, JUST 12
DAYS LATER THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
MET AND SECRETARY GATES WAS
THERE, AND I MADE THIS
STATEMENT.
I'M AMONG MANY PEOPLE WHO FEEL
THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS
INVOLVED THE UNITED STATES IN
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL
WAR IN LIBYA.
THAT SAME DAY I DROPPED H.R.
1323 WHICH ASKS THE PRESIDENT
TO FIND OFFSETS AND NONDEFENSE
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO PAY
FOR THE WAR IN LIBYA.
THAT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE
CONGRESS BECAUSE WE HAVE NO
MONEY, AND I SHOULDN'T ASK MY
KIDS AND MY GRANDKIDS TO PAY
FOR THAT WAR.
THIS IS NOT THE KING'S ARMY.
THE POWER TO MOVE OUR ARMY INTO
LIBYA IS NOT INHERENT IN
COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
IF IT WERE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE
PUT IN ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONGRESS
TO DECLARE WAR.
THIS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
ILLEGAL WAR.
I THINK IT SETS A VERY
DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.
I HOPE THAT WE MAKE THAT VERY
CLEAR IN OUR DELIBERATIONS
TODAY.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I RESERVE MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN CONTINUES TO RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
I YIELD 1 1/2
MINUTES, MADAM SPEAKER, MY
FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
READINESS, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
VIRGINIA, MR. FORBES.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA IS
HALF.
RECOGNIZED FOR A MINUTE AND A
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
BOEHNER RESOLUTION, BUT NOT
BECAUSE I FEEL THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS STATED A CORRECT
POLICY FOR US TO BE IN LIBYA.
I THINK HE HAS AND ALL YOU'LL
HEAR ON THE FLOOR TODAY WILL
LEAD TO A POLICY THAT IF WE
ADOPT IT WILL PUT US IN WAR
WITH FIVE OR SIX OTHER
COUNTRIES TOMORROW.
BUT SECONDLY, I DON'T SUPPORT
THE FACT THAT HOW WE GOT IN
GO THROUGH THE PROPER
THERE BECAUSE CLEARLY HE DIDN'T
PROCEDURES THAT WE NEED, DIDN'T
COMPLY WITH THE WAR POWERS ACT.
MADAM SPEAKER, I ALSO REALIZE
THAT REGARDLESS OF THAT
DISAGREEMENT HE IS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND AS SUCH HE HAS INFORMATION
ABOUT OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE THAT
MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DON'T
HAVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE
SHARED WITH US.
AND SECOND, MADAM SPEAKER, AS
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, WHEN IT COMES TO
FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES OF THIS
MAGNITUDE, WE NEED TO GIVE HIM
SOME LATITUDE TO PRESENT THAT
CASE AND MAKE IT TO THIS
CONGRESS.
MADAM SPEAKER, THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION DOES THAT IN A
REASONABLE WAY BY GIVING HIM 14
DAYS TO PRESENT THAT
INFORMATION.
BUT I BELIEVE AS MANY PEOPLE DO
AT THE END OF THAT 14 DAYS, IF
HE HASN'T DONE SO, HASN'T MADE
THAT CASE, HASN'T GIVEN US THAT
INFORMATION, WE NEED TO EITHER
BE PREPARED TO LAUNCH THE
SUBPOENAS TO GET THE INFORMATION
OR WE NEED TO BE BACK ON THIS
FLOOR TAKING ACTION TO CUT OFF
THE FUNDING OF WHAT'S TAKING
PLACE THERE.
AND WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I
HOPE WE'LL SUPPORT THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION, I THINK IT'S A
REASONABLE APPROACH, THE CORRECT
APPROACH AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
I CONTINUE TO
RESERVE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
CONTINUES TO RESERVE HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD 1 1/2 MINUTES TO MY FRIEND
AND COLLEAGUE, THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC
FORCES, THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO,
MR. TURNER.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS
HALF.
RECOGNIZED FOR A MINUTE AND A
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN
MCKEON.
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT MADE THE
CASE FOR A MILITARY CONFLICT IN
LIBYA.
HE HAS TOLD US WHO WE ARE
AGAINST, GADDAFI, BUT HE HAS NOT
TOLD WHITE HOUSE WE ARE FOR.
SECRETARY GATES -- TOLD US WHO
WE ARE FOR.
SECRETARY GATES HAS TOLD US WE
KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE
ABOUT THE REBELS.
OPPOSITION, WE KNOW VERY LITTLE
WE DON'T KNOW THEIR GEOPOLITICAL
VIEW TO THEIR NEIGHBORS, WE
DON'T KNOW THEIR VIEW TO US.
WE DO NOT KNOW THEIR COMMITMENT
TO DOMESTIC DIVERSITY.
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE ATROCITIES?
WE DON'T KNOW THEIR IDEOLOGY, WE
DON'T KNOW THEIR PREFERRED FORM
OF GOVERNMENT AND WE DON'T KNOW
THEIR COMMITMENT TO
NONPROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF
MASS DESTRUCTION, AN ISSUE
THAT'S IMPORTANT IN LIBYA.
NATIONS APPROVAL OF CIVIL
THE PRESIDENT HAS USED UNITED
PROTECTION TO WAGE ALL-OUT WAR
ON GADDAFI WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL OR AMERICAN SUPPORT.
U.S. ADMIRAL LOCKLEAR IN CHARGE
OF THE NATO OPERATIONS AGAINST
LIBYA RECENTLY STATED THAT
GROUND TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED TO
PROVIDE STABILITY IN LIBYA ONCE
THE GADDAFI REGIME FALLS.
YESTERDAY WHITE HOUSE PRESS
SECRETARY SAID HE BELIEVES THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS THE SUPPORT OF
THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS.
I DO NOT THINK SO.
I OFFERED A RESOLUTION, HOUSE
RESOLUTION 58, THAT WOULD VOICE
THIS BODY'S DISAPPROVAL OF THE
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS IN LIBYA.
75 MEMBERS HAVE CO-SPONSORED
THIS RESOLUTION.
I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
THIS BODY'S VOICE TO BE HEARD.
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT PROVIDED
ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHY WE ARE
DOING THIS, WHAT A POST-GADDAFI
AND WHAT WILL BE OUR
REGIME WILL LOOK LIKE IN LIBYA
INVOLVEMENT.
HE IS COMMITTING US TO AN
EXTENDED MILITARY ACTION AND FOR
CONGRESS TO BE RELEVANT OUR
I SUPPORT THE SPEAKER'S
VOICES NEED TO BE HEARD.
RESOLUTION AND I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO CO-SPONSOR HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 58.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA, MR.
MORAN.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
MADAM SPEAKER, I RISE TO OPPOSE
THIS MOTION.
THE WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL IS ABOUT
TO PROSECUTE RAD ITCH.
16 YEARS LATER.
WHAT THEY FINALLY GOT, WHY,
BECAUSE HE MASTERMINDED THE
MASSACRE OF OVER 8,000 INNOCENT
CIVILIANS.
IT WAS A NATO EFFORT.
WE TOOK THE LEAD IN THE BALKANS.
BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT
NATO COULD NOT HAVE PUT IT AN
END TO THOSE MASSACRES, THAT
GENOCIDE, HAD WE NOT TAKEN THE
LEAD.
WE OUGHT TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND
WE HAD TO ACT IN A TIMELY AND
FORCEFUL MANNER.
NOW, MORE RECENTLY THERE HAVE
BEEN ANY NUMBER OF TIMES SINCE
2000 WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD
TO USE AMERICAN TROOPS FOR
HUMANITARIAN REASONS AGAINST
TERRORIST THREATS, AGAINST
WHATEVER WAS INCONSISTENT
FUNDAMENTALLY WITH OUR MORAL
VALUES AND PRINCIPLES BUT ALSO
ENDANGERED AMERICAN CIVILIANS
AND TROOPS.
TO TIE THE PRESIDENT'S HANDS,
WHETHER IT BE A REPUBLICAN OR A
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, IS WRONG.
WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THIS.
OF COURSE WE SHOULD BE ADVISING
THE PRESIDENT, WORKING WITH THE
PRESIDENT, WHOEVER THAT
PRESIDENT MIGHT BE.
AND WE HAVE OUR COMMITTEE
LEADERSHIP, WE HAVE ANY NUMBER
OF OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THAT.
BUT TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT IS
DESIGNED TO TIE THE PRESIDENT'S
HANDS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
LEGACY OF THIS BODY WHICH IS TO
DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT
AMERICA'S INTERESTS AT HOME AND
ABROAD.
MAY I HAVE ONE MORE MINUTE?
I YIELD THE GENTLEMAN
AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
WITH REGARD TO LIBYA,
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE A WHAT THE
OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE IN LIBYA.
WE DO KNOW THAT GADDAFI IS A BAD
GUY.
HE'S NOT AN ALLY, HE'S NOT EVEN
RELIABLE IN TERMS OF WORKING
WITH IN ANY ECONOMIC OR FOREIGN
POLICY MEASURE.
IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT WE
CAN WORK WITH.
WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT
GOVERNMENT.
WE'RE NOT SURE OF THE OUTCOME.
BUT WE KNOW THE PEOPLE PUTTING
THEIR GOVERNMENT TOGETHER TODAY
WANT TO WORK WITH THE UNITED
STATES, BUT THEY NEED AMERICAN
SUPPORT.
OBVIOUSLY UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF
NATO, THAT'S NATO'S PURPOSE.
BUT NONE OF US SHOULD BE SO
NAIVE AS TO THINK THAT NATO CAN
OPERATE INDEPENDENT OF UNITED
STATES LEADERSHIP.
THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE.
WE HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT IN
OUR MILITARY CAPABILITY, WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED OURSELVES AS THE
WORLD SUPERPOWER AND WITH THAT
ROLE COMES A RESPONSIBILITY TO
USE IT APPROPRIATELY.
LET'S DEFEAT THIS AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD ONE MINUTE TO MY FRIEND
AND COLLEAGUE, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM VIRGINIA, MR. RIGELL.
I RISE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 292
I OBJECT TO THE U.S. MURL AT
THAT -- MILITARY INTERVENTION IN
LIBYA.
MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE FROM
VIRGINIA ACTUALLY HAS FAR MORE
CONFIDENCE IN THE INTENT AND THE
PURPOSE OF THE REBELS THAN I DO.
I'VE HEARD IN TESTIMONY, IN
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FROM
MULTIPLE TOP LEADERS IN OUR
COUNTRY THAT WE SIMPLY DON'T
KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE REBELS AND
IN MY VIEW NOT ONE SINGLE
PROVISION OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION HAS BEEN MET THAT
WOULD LEGITIMIZE THE PRESIDENT'S
INTERVENTION IN LIBYA.
SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA ANNOUNCED
MILITARY STRIKES, SECRETARY
DEFENSE GATES ADMITTED THAT
OPERATION ODYSSEY DAWN WAS NOT
IN THE INTEREST, IN THE VITAL
NATIONAL INTEREST OF THE UNITED
STATES.
AND THIS LEGISLATION, THE
BOEHNER RESOLUTION REFLECTS AND
MEETS THE DEEP OBLIGATION WE
HAVE TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND
TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
MADAM SPEAKER, I ASK MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS
RESOLUTION AND I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
RESERVE BUT I WOULD INQUIRE, I
AM SIMPLY GOING TO GIVE -- USE
UP THE REST OF THE TIME MYSELF.
DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS?
THEN I RESERVE MY TIME.
THANK YOU.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD ONE MINUTE TO MY FRIEND
AND COLLEAGUE, THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MISSISSIPPI, MR. TO LATZOW.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MISSISSIPPI IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
WE DO NOT SUPPORT THE
PRESIDENT'S HANDLING OF LIBYA
AND I AGREE WITH MY
CONSTITUENTS.
OUR COUNTRY, OUR MILITARY AND
THEIR FAMILIES ARE FATIGUED BY
10 YEARS OF WAR IN IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN.
THE WHITE HOUSE IS YET TO
CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WHY WE SHOULD COMMIT MORE
OF OUR PRECIOUS BLOOD AND
TREASURE TO A THIRD WAR.
WHERE'S THE LEADERSHIP AMERICANS
EXPECT AND DESERVE WHEN IT COMES
TO COMMITTING OUR TROOPS TO
FOREIGN WARS?
WITH RESERVATION, I WILL SUPPORT
HOUSE RESOLUTION 292, ONLY
BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES MUST
HONOR OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR
FRIENDS AND ALLIES ENGAGED IN
THE LIBYAN CONFLICT.
THIS RESOLUTION GIVES THE
PRESIDENT 14 DAYS TO EXPLAIN TO
CONGRESS THE SCOPE OF OUR
OBJECTIVES IN LIBYA AND IF HE
FAILS WE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY
WITHDRAW OUR SUPPORT FROM THE
CONFLICT AND AS MUCH AS WE CAN
CARE FOR OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES,
OUR LAND.
WE CANNOT CAST ASIDE THE LAWS OF
MR. PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE AND THIS CONGRESS HAVE
QUESTIONS AND DESERVE ANSWERS.
WE CANNOT AFFORD A FAILURE IN
LEADERSHIP WHEN AMERICAN LIVES
ARE ON THE LINE.
I YIELD BACK.
I WOULD
REMIND MEMBERS THAT THEY SHOULD
DIRECT THEIR COMMENTS TO THE
CHAIR.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I CONTINUE TO
RESERVE.
THE
GENTLEMAN CONTINUES TO RESERVE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MAY I INQUIRE AS TO
HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE LEFT?
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA HAS
ONE MINUTE AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WASHINGTON HAS 2 1/2
MINUTES.
AND WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO CLOSE?
THEN WE JUST HAVE ONE SPEAKER SO
WE'LL RESERVE OUR TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I YIELD MYSELF THE BALANCE OF
OUR TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THE PRESIDENT HAS
ROLE IN THIS MISSION WILL BE
SAID FROM THE OUTSET THAT OUR
LIMITED.
LIMITED BY CRITICAL -- BUT
CRITICAL.
WE ARE NOT COMMITTING TROOPS, WE
ARE NOT COMMITTING THE FULL
FORCE OF THE U.S. MILITARY, BUT
WHAT WE ARE CONTRIBUTING, AS MR.
MORAN SAID, IS ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE
MISSION.
WE ARE SUPPORTING OUR NATO
ALLIES IN MAKING SURE THAT THIS
MISSION IS CARRIED OUT IN A VERY
LIMITED AND VERY CRITICAL WAY.
AND I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE
AGAIN THAT MUAMMAR GADDAFI IS
NOT SOMEONE THAT IS IN THE BEST
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
HE HAS A LONG, LONG HISTORY OF
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, OF
SUPPORTING TERRORIST GROUPS, OF
ECONOMISTING TERRORIST ACTS
AGAINST UNITED STATES CITIZENS
AND IN GENERAL BEING AN UNSTABLE
AND DESTABILIZING FIGURE.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT OF LIBYA
DECIDED TO RISE UP TO THROW HIM
OUT, IT WAS A VERY APPROPRIATE
THING FOR THEM TO DO.
NOW, WE ALL WISH THAT MR.
GADDAFI WOULD HAVE GONE QUIETLY
AND SIMPLY, THAT CERTAINLY WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE EASIER WAY TO GO,
BUT HE DIDN'T.
AND TO PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE WHO
HAD LEGITIMATE ASPIRATIONS FOR A
BETTER GOVERNMENT, WE NEEDED TO
INTERVENE MILITARY -- MILITARILY
TO ASSIST.
I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE THE
BEST THING ABOUT THIS IS WE WERE
NOT ALONE.
THE ARAB LEAGUE, THE UNITED
NATIONS, NATO TOOK THE LEAD.
THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF
INSTABILITY THROUGHOUT THE
MIDDLE EAST AND THAT IS
UNQUESTIONABLY IN THE NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO DO WHATEVER
WE CAN TO TRY AND REDUCE THAT
INSTABILITY AND MAKE SURE THAT
GOVERNMENTS THAT LEGITIMATELY
WE HAVE FRIENDS, ALLIES AND ALSO
REPRESENT THE ASPIRATIONS OF
THEIR PEOPLE.
THAT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST
PROBLEMS WE'VE HAD, WE HAVE
SUPPORTED GOVERNMENTS IN THE
PAST IN THE MIDDLE EAST WHO
DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THEIR
PEOPLE.
WE NEED NOT JUST THE SUPPORT OF
GOVERNMENTS, WE NEED THE SUPPORT
OF THE PEOPLE IN THAT REGION,
THIS IS A CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY
TO GAIN THAT SUPPORT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S CLEARLY IN THE
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SO I DO NOT AGREE WITH MR.
BOEHNER'S RESOLUTION IN SAYING
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT
ARTICULATED THE CASE, HE HAS.
WE IN THE HOUSE SHOULD VOTE,
WHETHER WE APPROVE IT OR NOT,
BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS CORRECT
TO SAY THAT THE CASE HAS NOT
BEEN MADE.
LET'S HAVE A VOTE IN THIS BODY,
AS WE WILL IN THE KUCINICH
RESOLUTION, OF WHETHER OR NOT WE
SUPPORT WHAT'S GOING ON THERE OR
NOT BUT WE SHOULD NOT SIMPLY BE
ASKING THE PRESIDENT FOR
PROVIDED.
SOMETHING HE HAS ALREADY
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
YIELD THE REMAINING BALANCE OF
OUR TIME TO MY FRIEND AND
COLLEAGUE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
INDIANA, A MEMBER OF THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE, MR. YOUNG.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA IS
MINUTE.
RECOGNIZED FOR I BELIEVE ONE
THANK YOU, MADAM
SPEAKER.
I RISE IN SUPPORT AS MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE OF HOUSE
RESOLUTION 292, BECAUSE THIS
CONGRESS IS A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT.
AND WE MUST NEVER BE A QUIET
CO-EQUAL BRANCH, ESPECIALLY IN
MILITARY MATTERS.
WHEN THE U.S. ENDS -- SENDS ITS
SONS AND DAUGHTERS INTO HARM'S
WAY, IT MUST ONLY BE DONE TO
PROTECT AMERICA'S VITAL NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS AND WHERE
THERE'S A CLEAR PLAN TO ADVANCE
THOSE INTERESTS.
WE KNOW OUR NATION'S INSOLVENT
WITH A NATIONAL DEBT OF OVER $14
TRILLION, OUR TROOPS ARE ALREADY
OVEREXTENDED, WE'RE HEARING, IN
AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN.
MEANWHILE THE ADMINISTRATION'S
TALKING ABOUT DEFENSE SPENDING
CUTS AT THE VERY SAME TIME IT'S
PILING ON THIS NEW MISSION, A
HUMANITARIAN MISSION, A NARROW
HUMANITARIAN MISSION, WE'RE
TOLD, ON TOP OF ALL OUR OTHER
COMMITMENTS.
NOW WHAT GIVES?
THIS CONGRESS NEEDS TO BE HEARD.
OUR PRESIDENT HAS FAILED TO
PROPERLY DEFINE WHAT VITAL
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS
JUSTIFY THIS MILITARY
INTERVENTION AND WITH THIS
RESOLUTION WE GIVE HIM 14 DAYS
TO DO SO.
NOW, SADLY AND IRONICALLY, BY
BECOMING INVOLVED IN LIBYA, OUR
NATO ALLIANCE, WHICH DOES REMAIN
A VITALLY IMPORTANT NATIONAL
SECURITY INTEREST, MAY WELL HAVE
BEEN PUT AT RISK.
SO THIS CONGRESS WILL BE HEARD.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
ALL TIME FOR DEBATE HAS EXPIRED.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
294, THE PREVIOUS QUESTION IS
ORDERED ON THE RESOLUTION.
THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF
THE RESOLUTION.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
REQUEST THE YEAS AND NAYS.
THE
YEAS AND NAYS HAVE BEEN
REQUESTED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAKING
THIS VOTE BY THE YEAS AND NAYS
WILL RISE AND REMAIN STANDING
UNTIL COUNTED.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE 20,
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THIS
QUESTION WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
REDSKIN THIS NATION?
THANK YOU,
MADAM SPEAKER.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
294, I CALL UP HOUSE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 51 AND ASK FOR ITS
IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE RESOLUTION.
HOUSE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 51, CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE
PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO SECTION
5-C OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION, TO REMOVE THE UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES FROM LIBYA.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
294, THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
IS CONSIDERED AS READ.
THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION WILL
BE DEBATABLE FOR ONE HOUR WITH
30 MINUTES CONTROLLED BY THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA, MS.
ROS-LEHTINEN, AND 30 MINUTES
CONTROLLED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OHIO, MR. KUCINICH.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA.
THANK YOU --
THANK YOU,
MADAM SPEAKER.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE
ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MY FRIEND,
MR. BERMAN, BE ALLOWED TO
CONTROL 15 MINUTES OF MY TIME.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU.
MADAM SPEAKER, I YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEWOMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU,
MADAM SPEAKER.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE
CON.RES. 51 DIRECTING THE
PRESIDENT TO REMOVE UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES FROM LIBYA.
THE PRESIDENT HAS FAILED TO MAKE
THE ILLEGAL -- LEGAL EVEN
CONSTITUTIONAL CASE HE OWES TO
THE CONGRESS AND AMERICAN PEOPLE
BEFORE COMMITTING AMERICAN
FORCES TO A VOLUNTARY CONFLICT.
BUT THE SITUATION AS IT STANDS
TODAY IS AN IMPORTANT -- POSES
AN IMPORTANT U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY CONSIDERATION AND IT
REQUIRES THIS BODY TO OPPOSE THE
KUCINICH RESOLUTION.
THESE ARE, WHAT ARE THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, MADAM SPEAKER,
THESE ARE THE SUDDEN U.S.
WITHDRAWAL FROM LIBYAN
OPERATIONS PROPOSED BY THIS
RESOLUTION COULD DO IRREPRESENT
RABBLE HARM TO THE NATO ALLIANCE
AND ULTIMATELY UNDERMINE SUPPORT
FOR NATO EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN.
ALSO THE LONGER GADDAFI IS ABLE
TO CLING TO POWER AND CONTINUE
FIGHTING, THE MORE THAT HE WILL
DESTABILIZE THE LARGER REGION.
CONFLICT IS ALREADY SPILLING
OVER INTO NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES,
TUNISIA, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS
UNDERGOING A FRAGILE TRANSITION
OF ITS OWN.
ALSO THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
PROLIFERATION CONCERNS AT STAKE,
INCLUDING THE NEED TO SECURE
LIBYAN CHEMICAL MUNITIONS AND
PREVENT THE FLOW OF HEAVY AND
LIGHT WEAPONRY FROM LEAKING
ACROSS THE POROUS BORDERS OF
LIBYA.
ALSO, EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS
THAT POSE A CREDIBLE THREAT TO
AMERICAN INTERESTS INCLUDING AL
QAEDA AND THE ISLAMIC MAGRIB,
ALREADY ARE EXPLOITING THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ARM THEMSELVES
AND ORGANIZE.
SO WHILE I SHARE THE FRUSTRATION
OF MY COLLEAGUES, I AM DEEPLY
CONCERNED THAT AN ABRUPT
WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT FOR THE
NATO NATION WOULD HAVE
REPERCUSSIONS THAT EXTEND FAR
BEYOND THE BORDERS OF LIBYA.
ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION
WOULD SEND A SIGNAL TO GADDAFI
THAT IF HE CAN JUST HANG ON FOR
JUST 15 DAYS MORE, THE ALLIANCE
WILL CRUMBLE AND HE CAN RESUME
HIS DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR AND HIS
DESTABILIZING ACTIVITIES.
IN EGYPT THE STABILITY NECESSARY
TO PREVENT EXTREMIST ELEMENTS
FROM SEIZING CONTROL COULD BE
COMPROMISED IF THE CONFLICT IN
LIBYA REMAINS UNRESOLVED.
FURTHERMORE, MADAM SPEAKER,
PROVIDING GADDAFI FREE REIGN BY
FORCING THE U.S. TO RAPIDLY
WITHDRAW FROM THE NATO OPERATION
WOULD POSE AN EVEN MORE VIRULENT
THREAT TO SUCH OTHER ALLIES IN
THE REGION AS ISRAEL.
AN EMBOLDENED GADDAFI REGIME
WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO
PROVIDE BOTH DESTABILIZING TYPES
AND AMOUNTS OF CONVENTIONAL
WEAPONS AS WELL AS
UNCONVENTIONAL CAPABILITIES
THROUGH NEW AND EXISTING
SMUGGLING ROUTES.
TO VIOLENT EXTREMISTS IN
LEBANON, THE WEST BANK, AND
GAZA, EXTREMISTS WHO SEEK THE
DISRUPTION OF ISRAEL.
A U.S. WITHDRAWAL IN THE MANNER
THAT IS CALLED FOR IN THIS
RESOLUTION, IN FACT MANDATED IN
THIS RESOLUTION, COULD HAVE
DETRIMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR
COUNTRIES SUCH AS JORDAN AND THE
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES WHO PROVIDE
CRITICAL SUPPORT TO THE UNITED
STATES AND OUR NATO ALLIES IN
AFGHANISTAN.
AND AS OPERATIONS EXPERTS FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WARNED
YESTERDAY, AN ABRUPT WITHDRAWAL
FROM LIBYA OPERATIONS AS THIS
RESOLUTION DEMANDS WOULD
SEVERELY UNDERMINE SUPPORT BY
ALLIES.
OUR EUROPEAN UNION -- EUROPEAN
IN FACT, IT WOULD HAVE A
DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON NATO'S
EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN BOTH IN
TERMS OF WEAKENING OUR MISSION
PARTNERS AND EMBOLDENING THE
TALIBAN, AL QAEDA, AND
ASSOCIATED ELEMENTS.
IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE SAFETY
AND SECURITY OF U.S. FORCES THAT
AT THIS VERY MOMENT ARE ENGAGED
IN A BATTLE AGAINST HEAVILY
ARMED ENEMY FORCES IN
AFGHANISTAN.
MADAM SPEAKER, AS MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES KNOW, MY
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, LINDSAY, SERVED
IN IRAQ AND IN AFGHANISTAN.
I ALSO HAVE TWO COMMITTEE
STAFFERS, ONE IN THE ARMY
RESERVE AND ONE IN THE MARINE
RESERVES, WHO RECENTLY RETURNED
FROM SERVING A YEAR EACH IN
AFGHANISTAN.
THEY HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT THE
POTENTIAL DANGERS TO OUR TROOPS
THERE OF A NATO PULLOUT OR
DECREASE OF FORCES IN
AFGHANISTAN DUE TO A NEED TO
REFOCUS THEM ON ONGOING
OPERATIONS IN LIBYA IS INDEED
DANGEROUS FOR THE UNITED STATES.
THEY HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT
OPERATIONS IN LIBYA DO NOT EXIST
IN A VACUUM.
RECALL THAT THE HOUSE JUST THIS
LAST WEEK ADOPTED AN AMENDMENT
TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BILL TO PREVENT
U.S. MILITARY OR PRIVATE
SECURITY CONTRACTORS FROM
ESTABLISHING OR MAINTAINING A
GROUND PRESENCE IN LIBYA.
SPIKER BOEHNER -- SPEAKER
BOEHNER HAS OFFERED A RESOLUTION
THAT WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY
THAT FURTHER UNDERSCORES THAT
THE CONGRESS DOES NOT SUPPORT
PUTTING U.S. BOOTS ON THE GROUND
IN LIBYA.
NOW, MANY HAVE ARGUED THAT
CONGRESS NEEDS TO STRONGLY EXERT
ITS PREROGATIVES UNDER WAR
POWERS.
WE MUST DO SO, MADAM SPEAKER,
BUT DO SO IN A PRUDENT AND
RESPONSIBLE MANNER THAT PROTECTS
THE LEGITIMATE NATIONAL SECURITY
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
THIS RESOLUTION, MADAM SPEAKER,
DOES NOT DO SO.
SO I URGE A NO VOTE AND WITH
THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I RESERVE
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLELADY RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HER TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO.
I YIELD TWO
MINUTES TO THE PRIME CO-SPONSOR