[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 47 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2271-H2272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           CONFLICT IN LIBYA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address three aspects of the 
conflict in Libya. The first of these is I think the most important. 
Our efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Libya should not be the 
occasion to undermine democracy and the rule of law here in the United 
States. Now there is considerable constitutional argument about the 
powers of the President. There are those who say he cannot take any 
military action without first an action by Congress. But in 1802, 
President Jefferson sent American naval and marine forces, in the words 
of the song, to the shores of Tripoli, and the founding generation of 
this country thought that that was consistent with Presidential power. 
So those who think that the President has no power to ever engage, I 
think must look at our history, as well as the text of our 
Constitution.
  At the same time, there are those who say the President can do 
anything without congressional approval, and I think those folks go way 
too far. The answer is the War Powers Act, the law of the land, and we 
need to make sure that it is followed.
  Now that law not only requires various reports and consultation, it 
says that if hostilities are to continue for more than 60 days, that 
Congress must pass in both Houses a resolution authorizing such 
activity, and that if after 60 days Congress has not passed such 
resolution, then the President has 30 days to withdraw. This is the law 
of the land.
  And yet last week in both private session and in public hearings, 
high ranking members of the State Department declared by their 
vagueness that they might not follow the War Powers Act. That is why it 
is critical that we as a Nation demand that even those who are sworn to 
uphold the law, follow the law themselves, and that we in Congress add 
to any spending bill a provision that says no funds shall be spent for 
the purpose of violating section 5 of the War Powers Act which some 
also refer to as the War Powers Resolution.
  Second, who pays for all of this? The cost is far greater than the 
$500 million to $600 million being estimated by the Defense Department. 
I am a CPA. They are using the marginal cost approach, which is widely 
discredited. Any full costing will show what the American people fully 
understand, and that is that this is costing us billions of dollars 
every week. Now, we have seized $30 billion of Libyan assets, assets of 
Qadhafi that were invested here in the United States. Those assets 
should be used first before we use money collected from American 
taxpayers.
  Libya produces more oil per capita than any nation you can find on a 
map without a magnifying glass; more oil per capita, per person, than 
even Saudi Arabia. I realize Libya will need to be rebuilt, but its oil 
revenues will return and provide for that. And we should quietly insist 
that the Benghazi council pass a resolution authorizing the United 
States to use those seized Libyan assets to fund our military efforts.
  But there is something even more that we should insist on from those 
who are running eastern Libya, and that is that they use their best 
efforts, and I realize they are disorganized, to cut off their contact 
with and even seek to extradite those in their midst who have American 
blood on their hands. There is, for example, Mr. al-Hasadi who fought 
us in Afghanistan and Pakistan who brags that he dispatched soldiers to 
kill America's finest in Iraq, and who is now one of the rebel 
commanders. We should insist that such individuals be turned over to 
the United States, and if they can't find them, that they at least 
disassociate themselves.
  Now, the administration responds by saying that Qadhafi has American 
blood on his hands. And I am sure that Qadhafi has, after Pan Am 103, 
more American blood on his hands than do any collection of rebel 
leaders. But is this the standard by which we judge those that we ask 
our men and women to die for, to put themselves in harm's way for, to 
kill for?
  I do not think that it makes sense to say that the rebels should be 
aided as long as they have less American blood on their hands than does 
Mr. Qadhafi.

[[Page H2272]]

The test of whether these rebels will be allies and friends of America, 
or the opposite, is whether they turn over or use their best efforts to 
turn over al-Hasadi to the United States.

                          ____________________