Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
DO, AGAIN, IS EITHER PROVIDE
COVERAGE FOR MEMBERS SO THEY
DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT MR.
KUCINICH OR MAKE A STATEMENT.
ANYTHING.
BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY DO
OF MY TIME.
WITH THAT I RESERVE THE BALANCE
THE
GENTLEMAN'S HIGHLY IS RESERVED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I YIELD 90 SECONDS TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY, MR.
GARRETT.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR 90 SECONDS.
MR. SPEAKER, I
APPLAUD SPEAKER BOEHNER FOR
RAISING THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE
TODAY BEFORE THE HOUSE.
I CANNOT AGREE MORE WITH THE
SPEAKER THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO THE NATION
THE PURPOSE AND GOALS OF OUR
MILITARY OPERATION IN LIBYA.
THE SPEAKER'S RESOLUTION
RIGHTLY DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM
THE PRESIDENT WITH REGARD TO
THE SECURITY INTEREST AND
MILITARY OBJECTIVES IN OUR
ENGAGEMENT WITH LIBYA.
I WOULD GO EVEN FURTHER THAN
THAT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW
AND SET OUT SPECIFIC RESPONSES
FROM CONGRESS.
BUT LET'S BE CLEAR, CONGRESS
MUST ENGAGE IN A FULL AND OPEN
AND HONEST HE D BAIT ABOUT
SENDING OUR BRAVE MEN -- DEBATE
ABOUT SENDING OUR BRAVE MEN AND
WOMEN INTO COMBAT.
WE OWE THAT TO THE PEOPLE.
THE FOUNDERS INTENDED SUCH
DEBATE WHEN THEY GRANTED
CONGRESS THE POWER TO DECLARE
WAR.
THE PRESIDENT'S COMPLETE
FAILURE TO RECEIVE SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY AS REQUIRED BY THE
WAR POWERS ACT AND BY THE
CONSTITUTION LEADS TO ONLY ONE
CONCLUSION, THAT PRESIDENT
OBAMA IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE WAR POWERS ACT AS
WELL.
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS NOW
CANNOT SIT BY IDLY ANY LONGER.
AS THE PRESIDENT REFUSES TO
ABIDE BY HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AND
HIS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO IN CONCLUSION, I BELIEVE
THAT CONGRESS MUST HOLD THIS
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE, AND THE
SPEAKER'S RESOLUTION IS THE
FIRST STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
I RESERVE.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS RESERVED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA, MR.
NUGENT.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK MY
FRIEND AND FELLOW RULES
COMMITTEE MEMBER, MR. SCOTT,
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT
THIS RULE.
MR. SPEAKER, WHILE WE'RE
FIGHTING THE WARS ON TWO
FRONTS, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN,
OUR TROOPS IS ALREADY SPENT
VERY THIN.
THE PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED THE
U.S. MILITARY FORCES TO JOIN
WITH OUR NATO ALLIES TO
COMMENCE OPERATIONS IN LIBYA.
THE PRESIDENT DID THIS ONLY
WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORIZATION BUT WITHOUT EVEN
CONSULTING CONGRESS ON THE
MATTER.
FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE
OPERATION, IT WAS UNDER U.S.
COMMAND.
BEFORE SHIFTING THE ONGOING
OPERATIONS TO NATO ON MARCH 30.
TO THIS DAY THE PRESIDENT STILL
HASN'T COME TO CONGRESS TO ASK
FOR FORMAL APPROVAL.
WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH COMMITTED
OUR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN
LIBYA, HE SAID WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT DAYS, NOT MONTHS.
TODAY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
MONTHS, NOT DAYS.
MR. SPEAKER, PRESIDENT OBAMA
HAS PUT US IN A TRIP BAG WITH
OUR NATO ALLIES.
HE KNEW HE WAS COMMITTING OUR
NATO ALLIESES TO MISSIONS THAT
WOULD BE UNPOPULAR, UNJFBLE AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SO IN -- UNJUSTIFIABLE AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
PRESIDENT OBAMA TRANSFERRED
OPERATIONS OVER TO NATO.
ALTHOUGH WE MAY NOT BE IN
CONTROL OF THE MISSION, THERE
IS NO DOUBT NATO COULD NOT MOVE
FORWARD WITHOUT U.S. ASSETS.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM OHIO, MR.
KUCINICH, WILL POINT OUT THAT
93% OF THE CRUISE MISSILES, 66%
OF THE PERSONNEL, 50% OF THE
TROOPS AND 50% OF THE PLANES
ARE ESTIMATED OVER $700 MILLION
TO DATE.
I SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT
WHEREVER HE SENDS THE TROOPS.
I CANNOT AGREE WITH MILITARY
FORCES AND OPERATIONS WITHOUT
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
I RESERVE.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
CONTINUES TO RESERVE HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I YIELD TWO MINUTES TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR.
GINGREY.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
GOIP I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING.
I ASK -- MR. GINGREY: I THANK
THE GENTLEMAN FROM YIELDING.
I HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD FROM
EITHER SIDE ANYTHING I DISAGREE
WITH.
I AM GOING TO SUPPORT SPEAKER
BOEHNER'S RESOLUTION AND I AM
GOING TO PROBABLY OPPOSE
REPRESENTATIVE KUCINICH'S
RESOLUTION FOR THIS REASON.
THE SPEAKER CONVINCED ME OF
THAT, LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY
TO HIM WITH REGARD TO TWO WEEKS
PULLING EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE
IN LIBYA OUT AND COMING HOME
WOULD BE A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
IN REGARD TO OUR NATO ALLIES.
MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THIS
PRESIDENT GOT US INTO THIS
MESS.
IT WAS HIS IGNORING OF THE WAR
POWERS RESOLUTION ACT.
I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS ADVISING
HIM IN REGARD TO THAT.
WHETHER IT WAS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, BUT IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE
MISTAKE, BUT NOW THAT HE HAS
COMMITTED US, THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, AND OUR TROOPS TO
NATO THROUGH THIS U.N.
RESOLUTION, I FEEL IT WOULD BE
A MISTAKE TO IMMEDIATELY WITHIN
14 DAYS PULL THE RUG OUT FROM
UNDER THAT OPERATION.
I'M NOT COMPLETELY SATISFIED
WITH THE BOEHNER RESOLUTION,
BUT I THINK IT DOES, MR.
SPEAKER, LAY DOWN A MARKER.
IT MAKES A STATEMENT, AND THE
SPEAKER WAS VERY CLEAR IN
SPEAKING TO US THAT THIS IS NOT
THE END OF THIS.
THIS IS THE BEGINNING.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO IF WE
NEED TO TO AMEND THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION.
WE NEED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THE PRESIDENT
NOTIFIED IN REGARD TO THIS
OPERATION.
WHAT DID HE DO, SEND A TWEET TO
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE AND
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
AND THE RESPECTIVE SELECT
COMMITTEES ON INTELLIGENCE?
THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME,
A MEMBER, ONE OF 435 IN THIS
BODY.
IT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN,
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT TODAY.
AND WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I
TIME.
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS CONTINUE TO
RESERVE?
MR. SPEAKER, AT
THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO YIELD TWO
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
INDIANA, MR. BURTON.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
LET ME SAY THAT
THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE.
I HEAR A LOT OF PARTISAN
RHETORIC, BUT IT'S NOT A
PARTISAN ISSUE.
THIS IS AN ISSUE ABOUT WHERE WE
DEPLOY TROOPS, WHO HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO DO IT AND WHETHER
DONE IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
OR NOT WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE
-- AND I'LL PROBABLY SUPPORT
BOTH RESOLUTIONS -- BUT ONE OF
THE CONCERNS I HAVE ABOUT THE
SPEAKER'S RESOLUTION IS IT SAYS
THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT DEPLOY,
ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN THE
PRESENCE OF UNITS AND MEMBERS
OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED
FORCES ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA.
NOW, MOST OF OUR WARS THAT WE
FIGHT NOW ARE FOUGHT FROM THE
AIR OR FROM BATTLE SHIPS.
WE'VE HAD ABOUT 250 MISSILES
FIRED IN LIBYA AND ABOUT 226 OF
THEM ARE AMERICAN.
WE SPENT ALMOST 3/4 OF A
BILLION DOLLARS ALREADY AND
PROBABLY WILL GO OVER A
BILLION.
NOW, BOOTS ON THE GROUND SAYS
WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT TROOPS
INTO LIBYA, BUT WE GOT SHIPS
OFFSHORE.
WE GOT PLANES IN THE AIR.
WE GOT AIRMEN WHO ARE AT RISK
EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND WE'RE
COMMITTING MILITARY FORCES IN
LIBYA EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE
BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
THE GROUND.
THIS GOES FURTHER THAN BOOTS ON
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO
WHAT HE DID.
NOW, I THINK THAT THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION IS A GOOD STEP IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION, EXCEPT FOR
ONE THING.
IT LIMITS IT TO NO BOOTS ON THE
GROUND.
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY TROOPS
OVER THERE.
THIS WAS NOT APPROVED BY
CONGRESS, BY THE PEOPLE.
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE ARAB
LEAGUE.
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE UNITED
NATIONS.
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE FRENCH
AND THE ENGLISH, BUT NOT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
AND IT'S COSTING BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
IT WILL COST BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD
NOT HAVE HAPPENED AND IT SHOULD
NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
NOW, IF WE LIMIT THIS TO BOOTS
ON THE GROUND, WHAT IF THE
PRESIDENT DECIDES IN A WEEK
WHILE WE'RE OUT ON RECESS TO GO
INTO SYRIA?
AND THEY SAY, WELL, IT'S NO
BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
HE COULD STILL ATTACK SYRIA.
ASSAD THERE IN SYRIA WITH
AIRPLANES AND MISSILES.
WE NEED TO STOP THIS PRESIDENT
FROM MAKING UNILATERAL
DECISIONS THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT AND THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
DOES NOT SUPPORT.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
COMBOVEGOVE READY TO CLOSE.
WE'RE READY TO
CLOSE, WE RESERVE.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE
REMAINING?
THE
GENTLEMAN HAS FIVE MINUTES
REMAINING.
I YIELD MYSELF
THE BALANCE OF THE TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. SPEAKER, THIS
IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE.
AND I WANT TO COMMEND MANY OF
MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE COME
FOUGHT FLOOR TODAY WHO HAVE
SPOKEN VERY THOUGHTFULLY ABOUT
THIS ISSUE.
BUT ON THIS ISSUE QUITE FRANKLY
WE SHOULD HAVE COME TOGETHER IN
A BIPARTISAN WAY AND CRAFTED A
BIPARTISAN RESOLUTION AND COME
TO THIS FLOR -- FLOOR AS ONE
AND SPOKEN AS ONE.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE
POLITICS GOT IN THE WAY.
YOU KNOW, ANY TIME OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL WEEKS THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE OR THE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE COULD
HAVE REPORTED ON A RESOLUTION
ON LIBYA.
THEY DIDN'T.
MR. KUCINICH CAME TO THE FLOOR
WITH -- CAME TO THE HOUSE WITH
HIS RESOLUTION, WENT THROUGH A
PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE
COMPELLED A VOTE AND ALL OF A
SUDDEN THE REPUBLICAN
CAME UP WITH A BOEHNER
LEADERSHIP GOT NERVOUS AND THEY
RESOLUTION IN AN ATTEMPT TO
UNDERCUT THE KUCINICH
RESOLUTION.
IF YOU QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT
POLITICS HAD ANYTHING TO DO
WITH IT, I REVISE YOU TO READ
THE "POLITICO" PIECE THAT RAN
WHEN BOEHNER -- I QUOTE --
BOEHNER TOLD THE HOUSE
REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE DURING A
CLOSED DOOR MEETING ON THURSDAY
THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO TURN
THE FLOOR OVER TO DENNIS
KUCINICH, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.
OK.
I GET IT.
WE COULD HAVE COME TOGETHER AND
THE CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING
MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE, THE CHAIRMAN AND THE
RANKING MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE COULD HAVE
COME TOGETHER AND WE COULD HAVE
CRAFTED A BIPARTISAN RESOLUTION
AND DONE SOMETHING TRULY
MEANINGFUL HERE BECAUSE QUITE
FRANKLY IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT
POLITICAL PARTY THE PRESIDENT
MAY BE.
IT NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR THAT
CONGRESS PLAYS A ROLE IN WAR
MAKING, AND UNFORTUNATELY IN
THIS CASE I THINK THERE'S A
BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS THAT
CONGRESS WAS JUST IGNORED.
AND THAT CANNOT STAND.
MY PROBLEM, AGAIN, WITH THE
BOEHNER RESOLUTION, IS THAT IT
DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.
YOU KNOW, IF ANYBODY THINKS
THIS -- PASSING THIS RESOLUTION
HOUSE TO DO ANYTHING
IS GOING TO COMPEL THE WHITE
DIFFERENTLY OR PROVIDE US WITH
ANYTHING THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY
PROVIDED US WITH THEY'RE
GRATEFUL MISTAKEN.
IT DOESN'T FORCE THE PRESIDENT
OR THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO
ANYTHING.
IT'S A STRONG STATEMENT.
I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT --
WRITTEN IN A VERY PARTISAN WAY,
UNFORTUNATELY, BUT MY FRIEND ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE CAN
DO WHAT THEY WANT.
BUT IT REMINDS, I THINK, ALL OF
US WHO CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THESE
ISSUES THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER
WAY TO DO THIS.
ON ISSUES LIKE THIS WE SHOULD
COME TOGETHER IN A BIPARTISAN
WAY AND TRY TO CRAFT
RESOLUTIONS OR JOINT
RESOLUTIONS THAT MEAN SOMETHING
AND THAT BOTH SIDES CAN FEEL
COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE FOR
REMINDING US AGAIN OF THE WAR
POWERS RESOLUTION.
IT IS NOT SOME MERE RESOLUTION.
.
I MEAN, IT IS LAW, IT IS LAW.
THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY
IS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION NEEDS TO
BE UPHELD AND THE CONGRESS NEEDS
TO ASSERT ITS PROPER ROLE ON
THIS ISSUE.
HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT I WILL
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE NO ON
THE RULE.
BECAUSE I THINK THIS PROCESS IS
NOT APPROPRIATE.
I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
VOTE NO ON THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION.
AND I WILL VOTE FOR THE KUCINICH
RESOLUTION.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
THEIR CONSCIENCE ON THAT.
BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SEND A
STATEMENT, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO
SEND A MESSAGE, LET'S SEND A
MESSAGE, LET'S NOT SEND A PRESS
RELEASE, LET'S DO SOMETHING THAT
RESONATES THAT ONCE AGAIN
ASSERTS CONGRESS' PROPER ROLE IN
THIS DEBATE.
WE ARE INVOLVED IN TOO MANY
COURTS, WE ARE GOING BROKE, WE
ARE LOSING TOO MANY BRAVE MEN
AND WOMEN IN THESE CONFLICTS,
AND IN THE CASE OF LIBYA I
THINK.
OF MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE AISLE WONDER WHAT OUR
IS.
POINT IS AND WHAT OUR MISSION
IT'S NOT CLEAR.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
CONGRESS SHOULD BE INVOLVED.
WE NEED TO TAKE THIS OUT OF THE
REALM OF PARTISANSHIP AND RETURN
IT BACK TO WHERE IT BELONGS.
ISSUE HERE.
THIS SHOULD BE A BIPARTISAN
I REGRET THAT MY COLLEAGUES ON
CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE
I WOULD URGE A NO VOTE ON THE
RULE, NO VOTE ON THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION.
I WILL VOTE FOR THE KUCINICH
RESOLUTION.
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE THEIR
CONSCIENCE ON THAT.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
THIS RULE LETS THE HOUSE WORK
ITS WILL, WITHOUT ANY QUESTION.
YOU HAVE THE CHOICE.
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.
THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE WE ARE
CONFIDENT DEPARTMENT AND NOT
NERVOUS.
WE WANT TO CLOSE IN A BIPARTISAN
WAY BECAUSE THERE'S NO DOUBT
THAT WE WANT AMERICANS TO COME
TOGETHER AND I CAN THINK OF NO
MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO CLOSE
THAN TO QUOTE THEN SENATOR
BARACK OBAMA ONCE AGAIN.
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE
POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO
UNILATERALLY AUTHORIZE A
MILITARY ATTACK IN A SITUATION
THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE STOPPING
ANNUAL OR IMMINENT THREAT TO THE
NATION.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
I MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ON
THIS RESOLUTION.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE PREVIOUS
QUESTION IS ORDERED.
THE QUESTION IS ON ADOPTION OF
THE RESOLUTION.
SO MANY AS ARE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTSED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION--
MR. SPEAKER.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
I ASK FOR THE YEAS
AND NAYS.
THE YEAS AND NAYS --
THE
YEAS AND NAYS ARE REQUESTED.
THOSE FAVORING THE YEAS AND NAYS
WILL RISE.
A SUFFICIENT NUMBER HAVING
ARISEN, THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED.
BY ELECTRONIC DEVICE.
MEMBERS WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES
NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE,
[CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY THE
INC., IN COOPERATION WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVES.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
ANY USE OF THE CLOSED-CAPTIONED
COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS EXPRESSLY
PROCEEDINGS FOR POLITICAL OR
PROHIBITED BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.]
ON
THIS VOTE THE YEAS ARE 257.
THE NAYS ARE 156.
THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION
TO RECONSIDER IS LAID ON THE
TABLE.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
THANK YOU,
MR. SPEAKER.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
294, I CALL UP --
MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND THE HOUSE
IS NOT IN ORDER.
EVERY MEMBER OUGHT TO SIT DOWN
AND LISTEN TO THIS DEBATE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT.
THE HOUSE IS NOT IN ORDER.
WOULD ALL MEMBERS RESPECTFULLY
TAKE THEIR SEATS?
WOULD ALL MEMBERS PLEASE TAKE
THEIR SEATS OR TAKE YOUR
DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE THE HOUSE
CHAMBER?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA SEEK
RECOGNITION?
THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MR. SPEAKER.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
294, I CALL UP HOUSE RESOLUTION
292 AND ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE RESOLUTION.
HOUSE RESOLUTION
292, RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT
THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT DEPLOY,
ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN THE
PRESENCE OF UNITS AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES ON THE GROUND IN
LIBYA AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION
294, THE RESOLUTION IS
CONSIDERED AS READ.
THE RESOLUTION SHALL BE
DEBATABLE FOR ONE HOUR WITH 40
MINUTES EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED BY THE CHAIR AND
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS, AND 20 MINUTES EQUALLY
DIVIDED AND CONTROLLED BY THE
CHAIR AND RANKING MINORITY
ARMED SERVICES.
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON
THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA,
MS. ROS-LEHTINEN, AND THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA, MR.
BERMAN, EACH WILL CONTROL 20
MINUTES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA,
MR. MCKEON, AND THE GENTLEMAN
FROM WASHINGTON, MR. SMITH,
EACH WILL CONTROL 10 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEWOMAN FROM FLORIDA.
THANK YOU,
MR. SPEAKER.
AND I'D LIKE TO YIELD MYSELF
SUCH TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU.
I RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
HOUSE RESOLUTION 292 SPONSORED
.
BY OUR DISTINGUISHED SPEAKER.
AS THE RESOLUTION STATES AT THE
OUTSET, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES MAY ONLY BE USED
TO DEFEND AND ADVANCE THE
NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS OF
THE UNITED STATES.
NOT TO ENFORCE, TO QUOTE THE
PRESIDENT, THE WRIT OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, END
QUOTE.
NOT -- NOR BECAUSE OF THE UNITED
NATIONS -- NOR BECAUSE OF THE
ARAB LEAGUE.
YET THESE ARE WHAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS REPEATEDLY POINTED TO IN
JUSTIFYING SENDING U.S. FORCES
INTO ACTION IN LIBYA.
BUT WHAT HE HAS NOT DONE IS
EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND TO CONGRESS HOW THE
SITUATION IN LIBYA, IF ALLOWED
TO SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL, POSES
A THREAT TO U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS.
IT IS AN INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT
REGION, MR. SPEAKER, WITH
IMPLICATIONS STRETCHING INTO
OTHER AREAS THAT ARE VITAL TO
OUR NATION.
LITTLE IF ANY DETAILS HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED IN RESPONSE TO REPEATED
QUESTIONS REGARDING U.S. GOALS,
THE SCOPE OF THE OPERATION, AND
OTHER ISSUES OF DIRECT RELEVANCE
TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION
SIMPLY WON'T TELL US OR WHETHER
ANSWERS.
THEY JUST DON'T KNOW THE
MEMBERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE ARE INCREASINGLY
FRUSTRATED.
AND I SHARE THAT FRUSTRATION.
MANY QUESTION THE IMPORTANCE OF
LIBYA TO U.S. INTERESTS AND
ESPECIALLY THE NEED FOR MILITARY
ENGAGEMENT.
MANY MORE ARE OUTRIGHT ANGRY
ABOUT THE DISREGARD WITH WHICH
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
ADMINISTRATION HAVE TREATED
CONGRESS ON THE LIBYA MILITARY
ENGAGEMENT.
BUT IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT
THERE IS A DESIRE TO SIMPLY SAY
ENOUGH AND TO FORCE THE
PRESIDENT TO WITHDRAW
PRECIPITOUSLY REGARDLESS OF THE
CONSEQUENCES.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD ONLY
MAKE A DIFFICULT SITUATION WORSE
BY TAKING SUCH DRASTIC ACTION.
THE NEGATIVE IMPACT WOULD BE
WIDESPREAD, MR. SPEAKER.
THE NEWS THAT THE U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HAD MANDATED A
WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. FORCES WOULD
SEND A RAY OF SUNSHINE INTO THE
HOLE INTO WHICH GADDAFI IS
CURRENTLY HIDING.
IT WOULD ENSURE HIS HOLD ON
POWER.
IT WOULD BE SEEN NOT ONLY IN
LIBYA BUT THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE
EAST AND NORTH AFRICA --
THE
GENTLELADY SHALL SUSPEND.
THE HOUSE IS NOT IN ORDER.
OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE
GENTLELADY, PLEASE TAKE YOUR
SIDEBAR DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE THE
HOUSE CHAMBER.
THE GENTLELADY MAY RESUME.
I THANK THE
SPEAKER.
IT WOULD BE SEEN NOT ONLY IN
LIBYA BUT THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE
EAST AND NORTH AFRICA AS OPEN
SEASON TO THREATEN U.S.
ALLIES.
INTERESTS AND DESTABILIZE OUR
PULLING OUT OF THE NATO
OPERATION WOULD ALSO UNDERMINE
OUR NATO PARTNERS WHO AFTER
YEARS OF PRODUCTING BY --
PRODDING BY US HAVE FINALLY
BEGUN TO TAKE MORE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING
SECURITY AND STABILITY IN THE
REGION.
HOW COULD WE THEN ARGUE THAT
THEY MUST MAINTAIN THEIR
COMMITMENTS TO OUR ALLIED
EFFORTS IN AFGHANISTAN WHEN WE
HAVE JUST PULLED THE RUG OUT
FROM UNDER THEM IN LIBYA?
WE MUST NOT LET OUR FRUSTRATION
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S CONTEMPT
FOR CONGRESS CLOUD OUR JUDGMENT
AND RESULT IN OUR TAKING ACTION
THAT WOULD HARM OUR STANDING,
OUR CREDIBILITY, AND INTEREST IN
THE REGION.
BUT CLEARLY WE MUST SPEAK OUT.
THIS RESOLUTION OFFERED BY
SPEAKER BOEHNER WOULD SEND AN
UNAMBIGUOUS WARNING TO THE
PRESIDENT THAT HE MUST EITHER
CHANGE COURSE IN HIS DEALINGS
WITH CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OR HAVE THE DECISIONS
REGARDING U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN
LIBYA TAKEN OUT OF HIS HANDS.
IT STATES A FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH
THAT I ASSUME MOST IN THIS
CHAMBER AGREE WITH THAT U.S.
FORCES MUST ONLY BE USED TO
DEFEND AND ADVANCE THE NATIONAL
SECURITY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.
IT UNDERSCORES THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS NOT MADE A
COMPELLING CASE FOR U.S.
MILITARY INVOLVEMENT BASED ON
U.S. INTERESTS.
AND IT PROHIBITS THE DEPLOYMENT
OF U.S. GROUND FORCES IN LIBYA
SO THAT MISSION CREEP WOULD NOT
GRADUALLY LEAD US INTO AN EVER
EXPANDING CONFLICT.
IT ALSO REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT
TO PROVIDE TO CONGRESS THE
INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE
HAD AT THE OUTSET, INCLUDING,
MR. SPEAKER, WHAT ARE THE
POLITICAL AND MILITARY
AND LIBYA?
OBJECTIVES OF THE UNITED STATES
HOW DO WE INTEND TO ACHIEVE
THEM?
WHAT SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS HAVE
WE MADE TO OUR NATO OPERATIONS?
AND HOW MIGHT THESE IMPACT OUR
COMMITMENT IN AFGHANISTAN?
AND WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED
SCOPE, THE DURATION, AND THE
ANTICIPATED COST OF CONTINUED
U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN
LIBYA?
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
OPPOSITION FORCES THAT ARE
GROUPED UNDER THE INTERIM
TRANSITIONAL NATIONAL COUNCIL,
AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, THE
LIBYAN ISLAMIC FIGHTING GROUP,
AL QAEDA, HEZBOLLAH, AND OTHER
EXTREMIST GROUPS.
HOW WELL ARMED ARE THESE AND
OTHER EXTREMIST GROUPS?
AND HOW EXTENSIVE ARE THEIR
ACTIVITIES IN LIBYA?
WHO CONTROLS THOUSANDS OF
SHOULDER-FIRED ANTI-AIRCRAFT
MISSILES AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS
THAT GADDAFI HAS ACQUIRED?
FINALLY, MR. SPEAKER, THIS
RESOLUTION BLUNTLY STATES THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS NEITHER SOUGHT
NOR RECEIVED AUTHORIZATION BY
THE CONGRESS FOR THE CONTINUED
INVOLVEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA.
IF THIS CLEAR WARNING DOESN'T
GET THE ATTENTION AT THE WHITE
HOUSE, THEN MORE FORCEFUL ACTION
MAY BE INEVITABLE.
THE PRESIDENT CAN CHOOSE TO ACT
WITH THE SUPPORT OF CONGRESS AND
WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, BUT HE WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED TO PROCEED WITHOUT IT.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE FOR
THIS STRONG AND NECESSARY
RESOLUTION.
WITH THAT I AM PLEASED TO YIELD
ONE MINUTE TO THE DISTINGUISHED
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, MR. BOEHNER OF
OHIO.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS
RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
LET ME THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FOR YIELDING.
IN MARCH WHEN THE PRESIDENT
COMMITTED OUR TROOPS TO NATO'S
MISSION IN LIBYA, I SAID THAT HE
HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DEFINE THE
MISSION.
TO EXPLAIN WHAT AMERICA'S ROLE
WAS IN ACHIEVING THAT MISSION,
AND LAY OUT HOW IT WAS TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED.
HE HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY DONE SO.
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE
MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE HAVE
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT HAVE
GONE UNANSWERED.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS OUR COMMANDER IN
CHIEF.
AND I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THE
COMBAT DECISIONS SHOULD BE LEFT
TO THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND TO
THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND.
THE HOUSE ALSO HAS AN OBLIGATION
TO HEED THE CONCERNS OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS AND TO CARRY OUT
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES.
THE RESOLUTION I HAVE PUT
FORWARD EXPRESSES THE WILL OF
THE PEOPLE IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY
THAT REFLECTS OUR COMMITMENTS TO
OUR TROOPS AND TO OUR ALLIES.
LET ME LAY OUT EXACTLY WHAT THIS
RESOLUTION DOES.
FIRST, IT ESTABLISHES THAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS NOT ASKED FOR AND
THAT THE CONGRESS HAS NOT
GRANTED AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
INTRODUCTION OR CONTINUED
INVOLVEMENT OF OUR TROOPS IN
LIBYA.
SECOND, IT REASSERTS CONGRESS'
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE TO FUND OUR
TROOPS.
THIRD, IT REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT
TO PROVIDE WITHIN 14 DAYS
INFORMATION ON THAT MISSION THAT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FROM
THE START.
AND LASTLY, IT REAFFIRMS THE
VOTE THAT WE TOOK LAST WEEK THAT
SAYS THERE SHOULD BE NO TROOPS
ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA.
I HOPE THE PRESIDENT WILL
RECOGNIZE HIS OBLIGATIONS
OUTLINED IN THIS RESOLUTION AND
PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION TO
CONGRESS AND IN DOING SO BETTER
COMMUNICATE TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WHAT OUR MISSION IN LIBYA
IS AND HOW IT WILL BE ACHIEVED.
THE RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MY
COLLEAGUE FROM OHIO, MR.
KUCINICH, CONVEYS THE CONCERNS
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT IT
ALSO MANDATES A PRECIPITOUS
WITHDRAWAL FROM OUR ROLE IN
SUPPORTING OUR NATO ALLIES IN
LIBYA.
IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD
UNDERMINE OUR TROOPS AND OUR
ALLIES WHICH COULD HAVE SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES FOR OUR BROADER
IN MY VIEW, THE GENTLEMAN'S
NATIONAL SECURITY.
RESOLUTION GOES TOO FAR.
WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENCES
REGARDING HOW WE GOT HERE, BUT
WE CANNOT TURN OUR BACKS ON OUR
TROOPS AND OUR NATO PARTNERS WHO
HAVE STUCK BY US OVER THE LAST
10 YEARS.
IN 1991 MY FIRST VOTE AS A
MEMBER OF THIS BODY, I WAS TO
AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE IN
THE FIRST GULF WAR.
IT WAS A CONSEQUENTIAL TIME BUT
I THINK WE DID THE RIGHT THING.
TODAY IS NO DIFFERENT.
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND OUR COUNTRY, WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
IN HARM'S WAY AND TO SUPPORT OUR
ALLIES.
THIS RESOLUTION PUTS THE
PRESIDENT ON NOTICE.
HE HAS A CHANCE TO GET THIS
RIGHT AND IF HE DOESN'T,
CONGRESS WILL EXERCISE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND WE
WILL MAKE IT RIGHT.
SO I WOULD URGE A YES ON THE
RESOLUTION AND A NO ON THE
KUCINICH RESOLUTION.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA
RESERVES HER TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
MR. -- MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
RESOLUTION.
IF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
CHOOSE TO PASS THE SPEAKER'S ONE
CHAMBER RESOLUTION, IT SHOULD
ADD ONE FINDING THAT WE DECLARE
OURSELVES TO BE ONE BIG ACTUALLY
CREATED POTTED PLANT.
THIS RESOLUTION
CASTS ALL KINDS OF ASPERSIONS ON
THE PRESIDENT.
IT STATES THE PRESIDENT'S FAILED
TO PROVIDE CONGRESS WITH A
COMPELLING RATIONAL FOR
OPERATIONS IN LIBYA.
IT IMPLIES THERE HAS BEEN A
WITHHOLDING OF DOCUMENTS AND
INFORMATION FROM THIS BODY.
COULD THE PRESIDENT PROVIDE MORE
INFORMATION TO THE CONGRESS?
OF COURSE.
BUT WE NEED TO LOOK NOT JUST AT
THE PRESIDENT'S FAILURE TO SEEK
AN AUTHORIZATION, BUT THE
REFUSAL OF THIS BODY TO EXERCISE
ITS AUTHORITY IN THIS AREA.
THE ONUS RESTS WITH US TO
EXERCISE THE SACRED DUTY OF
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE.
A RESOLUTION LIKE THIS WITH NO
OPERATIVE LANGUAGE, WITH NO
INVOCATION OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION, AND WHICH WAS
PRESENTED TO MEMBERS FOR THE
FIRST TIME JUST 14 HOURS AGO,
SIMPLY PERPETUATES A DYNAMIC OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE AND
ACQUIESCENCE FOR THE MOST PART
HAS GONE ON TRULY SINCE THE
KOREAN WAR.
THERE ARE TWO CHOICES HERE.
IF THE MAJORITY THINKS THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S INITIAL EFFORTS TO
STOP A HUMANITARIAN CATASTROPHE
WERE WRONG, OR THAT CURRENT
OPERATIONS IN LIBYA DO NOT HAVE
A COMPELLING NATIONAL SECURITY
RATIONAL, IT SHOULD SUPPORT MR.
KUCINICH'S APPROACH AND OFFER A
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 5-C OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE REMOVAL
OF U.S. FORCES.
IF THE MAJORITY HAS CONCERNS
WITH MR. KUCINICH'S APPROACH AS
MANY OF US DO, AND BELIEVES
TERMINATING MILITARY ACTION
WOULD HAVE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES
FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY, IT
SHOULD SIMPLY AUTHORIZE THE USE
OF FORCE IN LIBA INCORPORATING
THE RESTRICTIONS ON GROUND
FORCES THAT THIS RESOLUTION HAS,
THAT THE CONYERS LANGUAGE ON THE
D.O.D. BILL HAD.
I WOULD GLADLY JOIN THE SPEAKER
IN CO-SPONSORING SUCH AN
AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE --
LIMITED USE OF FORCE.
BUT PURSUING A NONBINDING HOUSE
RESOLUTION THAT TAKES POTSHOTS
AT THE PRESIDENT AND AMOUNTS TO
NOTHING MORE THAN A SENSE OF THE
CONGRESS IS JUST AN EXERCISE IN
POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP.
IT IS A PA CAN'TIC EFFORT TO EM
BEARS THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT
TAKING ANY OWNERSHIP FOR THE
POLICY OF THE INTERVENTION.
THE MAJORITY NOT THE PRESIDENT
PUTS THIS BODY IN THE POSITION
OF POWERLESSNESS THROUGH SUCH
TOOTHLESS EFFORTS.
WE ARE 60 DAYS INTO THIS
OPERATION.
EITHER WE SHOULD AUTHORIZE THIS
ACTION OR TERMINATE.
NOT PLAY AROUND WITH REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
CONFUSING.
THE RESOLUTION IS ALSO
IT STATES THAT THE PRESIDENT
SHALL NOT DEPLOY OR MAINTAIN THE
PRESENCE OF U.S. MILITARY UNITS
ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA, BUT AS
THE MAJORITY WELL KNOWS, U.S.
MILITARY ACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED
TO OPERATIONS AND NOTHING MORE.
DOES THE LANGUAGE MEAN THE
MAJORITY IS OK WITH THE CURRENT
INTERVENTION IN LIBYA?
THE MAJORITY SEEMS TO BE RAISING
A FUSS WHILE WINKING AT THE
WHITE HOUSE.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO LEGISLATE.
FINALLY, I OBJECT TO THE
RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT IS DOWN
RIGHT INACCURATE.
THE RESOLUTION IMPLIES THAT
THERE IS NO COMPELLING NATIONAL
SECURITY RATIONALE FOR THE
OPERATIONS IN LIBYA.
BUT U.S. INTERESTS ARE CLEAR,
THEY HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED BY
THE ADMINISTRATION AND
IRONICALLY BY CONSERVATIVE
ADVOCATES LIKE BILL KRISTOL.
WE ARE IN LIBYA BECAUSE WE ARE
AVERTING A PROBABLE MASSACRE
AGAINST CIVILIANS.
WE ARE IN LIBYA BECAUSE OUR NATO
PARTNERS NEED OUR HELP.
REFUSAL TO ACT THERE WOULD SEND
A MESSAGE TO OUR NATO ALLIES WHO
ARE PUTTING THEIR FORCES ON THE
LINE IN AFGHANISTAN THAT WE ARE
NOT A DEPENDABLE PARTNER.
WE ARE IN LIBYA BECAUSE OUR
FRIENDS STRUGGLING FOR DEMOCRACY
IN THE MIDDLE EAST ARE WATCHING
EVENTS THERE.
IF WE FAIL TO ACT OR WORSE SEEK
WITHDRAWAL TODAY, WHAT WILL YOU
BE SAYING TO THE ACTIVIST IN
TUNISIA AND EGYPT WHOSE FRAGILE
MOVEMENTS FOR DEMOCRACY COULD BE
STIFLED BY THE DESTABILIZING
EFFECT OF A GADDAFI-LED
GOVERNMENT REMAINING IN POWER.
AND WHAT MESSAGE WOULD WE BE
SENDING TO ASSAD AND THE OTHER
DICTATORS AND ENEMIES ABOUT OUR
.
STAYING POWER?
A GADDAFI WHO IS UNLEASHED TO
COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM AROUND
THE WORLD WILL DO SO WITH
UNSPEAKABLE BARBARITY.
WE KNOW HIS WILLINGNESS TO USE
TERROR, ESPECIALLY NOW HE HAS
NOTHING TO LOSE.
I CANNOT THINK OF A MORE
COMPELLING RATIONALE.
I OBJECT THAT THE HUMANITARIAN
OBJECTIVES ARE INCOMPATIBLE.
IN LIBYA IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT
STOPPING *** AND PREVENTING
A REFUGEE CRISIS VERY MUCH
CORRESPOND WITH U.S. NATIONAL
INTERESTS.
THE REPUBLICAN SPONSORS OF THIS
IT BOTH WAYS.
RESOLUTION ARE TRYING TO HAVE
THEY WANT TO CRITICIZE OUR
PRESIDENT FOR TAKING THE VERY
ACTION THAT MANY OF THEM CALLED
FOR THREE MONTHS AGO AND THEY
WANT TO DO SO WITHOUT TAKING
ANY RESPONSIBILITY.
IN THE PROCESS THEY'RE OFFERING
NOTHING BUT CRITICISM AND
OBSTRUCTION AND ENDLESS SECOND
GUESSING.
PRESIDENT BUSH ONCE ACCUSED THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF BECOMING
THE PARTY OF CUT AND RUN.
WELL, IT SEEMS THE RUNNING SHOE
IS NOW ON THE OTHER FOOT.
IT IS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT
THAT IS TAKING ON A BRUTAL
TYRANT AND IT IS THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY THAT REFUSES TO BACK HIM.
I URGE MY CRETION TO --
COLLEAGUES TO TAKE SERIOUS THE
U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN LIBYA AND
VOTE NO ON THIS RESOLUTION.
DOES
THE GENTLEMAN RESERVE?
I RESERVE THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES THE BALANCE
OF HIS TIME.
THE GENTLELADY FROM FLORIDA.
MADAM
SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS MAY
HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO
REVISE AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS
AND INCLUDE EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL
ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 292 AND
H.CON.RES 51 AND WITH THAT,
MADAM SPEAKER, I YIELD TWO
MINUTES FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM
INDIANA, MR. BURTON.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA IS
RECOGNIZED FOR TWO MINUTES.
LET ME JUST SAY
THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE WAR
POWERS ACT PROHIBIT THE
PRESIDENT WERE DOING WHAT HE
DID.
AND I'M KIND OF TORN BECAUSE I
STAYED UP LATE LAST NIGHT
THINKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE
ISSUE.
I BELIEVE WE SHOULDN'T HAVE
GONE INTO LIBYA IN THE FIRST
PLACE AND WE SHOULDN'T GO INTO
SYRIA OR ANOTHER PLACE WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION OF THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
THAT'S THE REASON WHY I
CO-SPONSORED THE KUCINICH
RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO
SEND A VERY STRONG SIGNAL WE
ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO WAR
WITHOUT THE PEOPLE OF THIS
COUNTRY SUPPORTING IT.
AND THE PRESIDENT DID THIS
UNILATERALLY AFTER TALKING TO
THE ARAB LEAGUE AND THE U.N.
AND OTHERS WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING.
THE SECOND THING IS THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
BUT IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.
AS FAR AS IT GOES IT'S FINE.
BUT IT TALKS ONLY ABOUT BOOTS
ON THE GROUND, AND MOST OF THE
WARS IN WHICH WE'VE BEEN
INVOLVED ARE FOUGHT IN THE AIR
WITH DRONES AND MISSILES AND
AIRPLANES, AND WE GOT -- ABOUT
2/3 OF THE MISSILES AND OVER
HALF OF THE ASSAULTS FLOWN BY
THE AIR -- THE AIRPLANES THAT
ARE INVOLVED IN THIS WAR, OVER
2/3 OF THOSE ARE USED BY THE
UNITED STATES.
THIS IS AN AMERICAN CONFLICT,
AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BOOTS
ON THE GROUND, THAT'S NOT
SUFFICIENT.
NOW, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT AS
FAR AS IT GOES BECAUSE THE
SPEAKER'S TRYING TO MOVE THIS
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT WE
SHOULDN'T JUST LIMIT THIS TO
BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
IT SHOULD INVOLVE NO MILITARY
OPERATION WHATSOEVER WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS AND
THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY.
AND WHEN THE SPEAKER SAYS BOOTS
ON THE GROUND ONLY UNLESS WE'RE
GOING IN TO SAVE ONE OF OUR
TROOPS THAT ARE DOWN IN AN AIR
FIGHT OR SHOT DOWN WHEN THEY GO
IN ON A BOMBING RUN, THEN THAT
IN EFFECT IS PUTTING BOOTS ON
THE GROUND ANYHOW TO GET THOSE
PEOPLE OUT OF THERE.
SO I'LL SUPPORT THE BOEHNER
RESOLUTION, BUT I PREFER THE
KUCINICH RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT
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