[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 79 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3990-H3998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 292, REGARDING DEPLOYMENT OF
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN LIBYA, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H. CON. RES. 51, LIBYA WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 294
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 292)
declaring that 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, and for other
purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except one hour of
debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res.
51) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the
War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed
Forces from Libya, if called up by the chair of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs or her designee. The concurrent resolution
shall be considered as read. The concurrent resolution shall
be debatable for one hour, with 30 minutes controlled by
Representative Ros-Lehtinen of Florida or her designee and 30
minutes controlled by Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his
designee. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the concurrent resolution to its adoption without
intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from South
Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. For the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 294 provides for a
closed rule for consideration of two measures, House Concurrent
Resolution 51 and House Resolution 292.
This rule allows for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution
51, consistent with the War Powers Act, and provides for an alternative
measure introduced by the Speaker of the House. I support the Speaker's
resolution and the ability to have up-or-down votes on both
resolutions.
This approach is consistent with the Speaker's and our conference's
goal of a more open and transparent process, allowing the House to work
its will on both resolutions. Members can vote for one of the
resolutions, both of the resolutions, or neither of them.
The underlying legislation addresses the administration's actions in
Libya. Mr. Speaker, on March 19, 2011, President Obama ordered U.S.
military intervention in Libya as a part of a multinational coalition.
Well over 60 days later--let me say that one more time--over 60 days
later the President has still not asked for, nor has he received,
authorization from Congress to commit troops to such action.
Mr. Speaker, article I of our Constitution states that Congress, and
only Congress, has the power to declare war. This point was made best
in 2007 by then-Senator Barack Obama, who said: ``The President does
not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a
military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual
or imminent threat to the Nation.''
Just in case we missed that, the current President got it right in
2007 when he was a Senator. I want to quote him one more time. He said
that ``the President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.''
While the United States must play offense in the war on terror, and
we should not have to wait for threats to materialize before acting. It
is not clear, it is simply not clear that Libya posed a threat to our
Nation that justified the use of troops, the United States' troops.
It is undeniable that Qadhafi is one of the most notorious terrorists
of our time, and the world will be a better place when he is gone. But
at the same time, there is no shortage of dictators who should be
removed from power. Syria's Assad is butchering his own people as we
speak. Iran, under Ahmadinejad, sponsors terrorism around the world, he
persecutes religious minorities, and is working to develop a nuclear
bomb.
[[Page H3991]]
Moreover, the President has not outlined the purpose or the scope of
our action in Libya. Is the objective the removal of Qadhafi from
power? If so, who will replace Qadhafi? And what assurances do the
American people have that the alternative will be any better than
Qadhafi?
House Resolution 292 accomplishes four objectives. First, it
establishes that the President of the United States, President Obama,
has not asked for congressional authorization for a military
involvement in Libya, and that Congress has not granted such authority.
Second, the resolution reasserts that Congress has the option to
withhold funding for any unauthorized use of the United States Armed
Forces, including such activities in Libya. Third, the resolution
requires the President to provide within 14 days information to
Congress which should have been provided from the start. Fourth, the
resolution reaffirms the vote that Congress took just last week that
says that there should be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya unless
they are there to rescue American troops.
It is unfortunate, it is very unfortunate that our President has made
this resolution necessary. Yet at the same time, we are mindful that
the congressional action must consider our responsibilities to our
allies, including those that are currently in harm's way. America keeps
its promises. We keep our commitments. And we stand by our soldiers and
our allies. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Carolina
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week the House spoke quite clearly on the question
of Libya during the debate on the fiscal year 2012 National Defense
Authorization Act. By a vote of 415-5 on a bipartisan amendment offered
by Congressman Conyers, the House voted against U.S. deploying ground
troops in Libya. So the House has clearly stated its position on U.S.
military operations in Libya.
But that vote did not touch upon two serious matters, each very much
connected to the other. First is the fact that the President did not
seek a congressional authorization for a U.S. military operation in
Libya in coordination with our NATO allies; nor did the leadership of
this House insist on one or pursue one.
Second, under the War Powers Resolution, the President has not sought
the authorization of Congress during the required time period to
maintain U.S. Armed Forces in military operations in Libya. Simply put,
under the War Powers Resolution, the President must obtain
congressional authorization for military action that lasts longer than
60 days. If Congress does not authorize military action, the President
must withdraw troops within 30 days.
The 60-day authorization deadline expired on May 20, and the 30-day
withdrawal deadline expires on June 19. Therefore, the Congress now has
the responsibility to call for the end of U.S. military operations in
the absence of a clearly defined authorization for U.S. military
operations in Libya.
{time} 0920
Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee considered two
resolutions: one offered by Representatives Kucinich, Burton and
Capuano, which clearly addresses the violation of the War Powers
Resolution and would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces from
military operations in Libya. If passed by the House and the Senate, it
would have the force of law. The other, offered by the Speaker of the
House, is a simple H. Res, a nonbinding resolution, a document which is
simply advisory in nature and relevant only as a statement of the
House, which reprimands the President for failing to seek proper
authorization for our military operations in Libya, asks for reports to
provide the House with necessary information regarding national
security interests and costs of the Libya operation, and then does
nothing. Nothing, Mr. Speaker. It again shirks the responsibility of
this House and this Congress as a whole to either take up and pass an
authorization for U.S. military operations in Libya, or pass a
resolution requiring a withdrawal of U.S. forces and an end to U.S.
military operations in Libya.
Mr. Speaker, it's easy to complain, it's easy to lay blame, but it
takes leadership to own up to our own responsibilities and take
appropriate action, and it takes leadership to handle this process in a
responsible way. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this process does not do that.
The Republican leadership rushed their resolution through the Rules
Committee without any hearings and without any markup, violating their
3-day pledge to allow people to read the bill. So much for the new,
open House of Representatives.
This would be sad, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't so important. War is a
serious issue. Whether we are sending unmanned drones, armed jets or
American soldiers into harm's way, war must be debated and considered
by the Congress in a responsible manner. The Republican leadership,
however, is not treating this issue the way it deserves to be treated.
This debate deserves better, quite frankly. The American people deserve
better.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Just one clarification: The concurrent
resolution, H. Con. Res. 51, does not become law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. I am honored to be here with the newly
elected freshman member of the First District of South Carolina, Tim
Scott. I appreciate his leadership on the Rules Committee. The people
of South Carolina are very proud of his service. The people of the
First District of South Carolina are noted for their strong support of
the military. They elect Members to Congress like Tim Scott who work
for a strong military, a strong national defense in the tradition of
Ronald Reagan, of peace through strength.
In the First District, the Congressman has the Citadel, the military
college of South Carolina; the Charleston Air Force Base, the Naval
Weapons Station, SPAWARS. In fact, I actually grew up there adjacent to
a U.S. Coast Guard base, so we know the value of a strong military.
Personally, in fact, Congressman Scott's brother was the Command
Sergeant Major at Landstuhl, one of the largest military hospitals in
the world in Germany. Through his Army experience and family
connection, we know that Tim Scott is for a strong military and
understands as I do how important it is that military force should only
be used when it is in America's vital interests.
I have the perspective of being the son of a World War II veteran, a
Flying Tiger. I served 31 years in the Army National Guard. I have four
sons currently serving in the military. I want our military to be used
properly. When the President is right, as he was to follow the advice
of General David Petraeus to add troops, the surge in Afghanistan, the
resulting success that we see in Afghanistan today, we're happy to
support him. But this resolution is very important, because we have not
seen from the President of the United States, there has been a failure
of leadership in regard to explaining why military forces are being
used in Libya.
I'm very pleased with the resolution. The key point that the American
people need to know is declaring that 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. To put troops on the
ground, I believe, is highly irresponsible. A case has not been made of
why this is in America's vital interests. We know there is great
conflict as to who the rebels are. What are these rebels? Are these al
Qaeda elements that are attacking the Qadhafi forces? The Qadhafi
forces themselves? What would happen if we got involved with troops on
the ground? These issues need to be resolved on behalf of the American
military, on behalf of the American people, and we urge through this
resolution that the answers be provided to the American people, to the
American military, to our allies, why are we there? What is America's
vital interest?
[[Page H3992]]
And so I urge support of the rule and commend the freshman
Congressman from South Carolina for his leadership.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, just so we're all clear here, under the War Powers Act, if a
concurrent resolution is passed demanding that the troops are removed
from a particular country, then they will be removed, if you believe
that the War Powers Act carries any weight, and I believe that the War
Powers Act is relevant here. That's what the resolution by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) does.
What the resolution my friends in the Republican leadership have
drafted does is nothing. Your resolution doesn't even have to go to the
Senate. It won't go to the Senate. It directs the President to do a
whole bunch of things that, quite frankly, he can ignore, because this
bill doesn't mean anything. What this is--and let's be clear about what
this is--is this is a way for some of my friends on the other side of
the aisle to kind of cover their back sides, to be able to say to their
constituents, We did something tough on Libya. Let me read to you how
tough the language is in the bill that the Speaker of the House has
drawn up. A lot of tough language. It sounds good. Except when you look
a little bit more closely, you realize that this is an H. Res, which
doesn't mean a thing.
So if you're into symbolism, if you're into therapy, you know, vote
for the Boehner resolution. If you are interested in action, if you are
interested in actually living up to our responsibilities as lawmakers
in the United States Congress, then I would suggest that you look at
the resolution that the gentleman from Ohio has drafted.
You can talk all you want about how the Republican alternative here
is somehow meaningful, but it really isn't. Again, I shouldn't be
surprised. No one should be surprised here, because most of what they
have done since they assumed control of the Congress has been
meaningless, has been symbolic. Whether it's dealing with health care
or jobs, which they don't want to talk about, you name it, a lot of it
has been mostly symbolic. I think on the issue of war, we should take
it more seriously and be more honest with the American people as to
what we're doing.
At this point I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, what we are confronted with today is not primarily a
question of foreign policy or even of war policy. We are presented with
a question of constitutional law and of the prerogatives of the United
States Congress. Shall the President, like the King of England, be a
dictator in foreign policy? Shall the President have the unfettered
right to take this country to war without so much as a ``by your
leave'' from Congress as the King of England could do without
authorization from Parliament?
The authors of our Constitution answered that question in the
negative. They said, ``No, we don't trust kings, we don't trust
executives to make a decision to go to war. We want that to be the
prerogative of the people as represented by the Congress.''
{time} 0930
A whole series of Presidents since World War II have forgotten that,
starting with Harry Truman in the Korean War and Lyndon Johnson in the
Vietnam War right up to the present.
Now, there are reasons for this, and I will go into that when I speak
on the Kucinich resolution a little later. I would simply observe now I
am going to vote for the Boehner resolution, but I am also going to
vote for the Kucinich resolution.
The Boehner resolution is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't deal
with the basic problem. The Boehner resolution says the President has
failed to provide Congress with a compelling rationale based upon U.S.
security interests for current United States military activities, that
is true. Frankly, I do not understand why we are in Libya.
The Boehner resolution then says the President shall transmit to the
House of Representatives all kinds of information, basically saying why
we are there, and that's good. You should have done that before we went
there, but it's good that we demand this information now. But then the
Boehner resolution stops.
All it demands of the President is that he gives us his reasons. And
his reasons, maybe we will agree with him, maybe we won't. Maybe they
are sufficient, and maybe they are not.
Then it says, ``Findings.
``(a) The President has not sought, and Congress has not provided,
authorization for the introduction or continued involvement of the
United States Armed Forces in Libya.''
That's true.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
``(b) Congress has the constitutional prerogative to withhold funding
for any unauthorized use of the U.S. Armed Forces, including for
unauthorized activities regarding Libya.''
That's also true, but so what. It doesn't direct anything. It doesn't
say that what the President did was outside his powers. It doesn't
direct that the activity stop. It doesn't do anything. I think we
should do something, because if in this situation we do not reclaim
congressional powers, I can think of no set of circumstances under
which the President cannot go to war without going to Congress first,
no set of circumstances. And that turns the Constitution and the
intentions of our Framers and the intentions of our whole
constitutional law system on its head.
Therefore, I urge a vote of ``yes'' on the Boehner resolution and a
vote of ``yes'' on the Kucinich resolution, which, unlike the Boehner
resolution, actually does something about the situation we find
ourselves in.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
Mr. DENHAM. You know, this could not be any more serious. It's
important for us to debate what our servicemembers are doing in foreign
conflicts.
The War Powers Act, it is important to make sure that the President
understands from Congress exactly what we are willing to do with our
American troops and where we are willing to fight.
But I do agree he has to give us his reasons. In Desert Storm, we
knew why we were there. We knew what our role was, we knew what our
goals were, we knew what our exit strategy was.
These are the very reasons that we are looking for before we
appropriate funds, before we put our troops at risk, before any boots
go to the ground, before this conflict escalates any further, before a
new government comes into play, we expect these answers to be given to
us. We expect the President to do his job, to show leadership, to
address Congress and explain why he is committing American
servicemembers.
So this is very serious. It is very serious and it's long overdue.
The President should have come here first. He certainly should have
come here within 60 days. It is long overdue, it is very serious, and
the time to demand answers is now.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
I hear a lot of talk on the other side about the Boehner resolution
requires the President to do this, it directs him to do that, he must
do this, he shall do this. But the way you have presented this in this
H. Res. form, the President doesn't have to do anything. So let's not
fool ourselves, and let's not fool the American people that somehow
this is meaningful.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This could be no more a somber debate than
what we are doing here today, and I thank the manager, Mr. McGovern,
and the gentleman from South Carolina for recognizing, through the
leadership of our House, that the American people must be engaged in
the constitutional duties that have been set out for the three branches
of government.
Under the Constitution, the war powers are divided between Congress
and the President, and among other relevant grants, Congress has the
power to declare war and raise and support armed forces while the
President is the Commander in Chief.
The congressional duties fall under article 1, section 8, and the
Commander
[[Page H3993]]
in Chief can relate his or her duties to article 2, section 2.
It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the
President power to utilize the armed services to repel attacks against
the United States. But there has long been a challenge or controversy
over whether he or she is constitutionally authorized to send forces
into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or
congressional authorization.
And so here we are today indicating that it is important for the
Commander in Chief, no matter how much respect there is, to be able to
respond to the call of the Congress. There are now two resolutions that
swirl around the violence and horrific acts in Libya. Compounding the
problem is a continued violence, an assault on the people of Libya.
So for a moment let me focus on General Qadhafi to ask him the
question, is he reasoned, and does he recognize that the slaughter of
his people must stop? The President of South Africa engaged in peace
talks with General Qadhafi, and many of us thought that the white flag
would be raised and that there would be an opportunity for resolution.
We see that not coming.
So my message to General Qadhafi is to stop this senseless and
violent war, to allow your people to accumulate the privileges of human
dignity, that is to be able to live in peace and hopefully to secure
democratic rights for themselves. But at the same time we in the United
States cannot stand by and watch as violence proceeds. We must have
procedure. We must have process.
I believe the Boehner amendment gives at least some tracking as to
what you are asking the President for, but I still quarrel with the
debate and the question as to whether or not that is enough.
I am supporting this rule so that we can move forward to begin to
debate this question of the War Powers Resolution, and it is important
that the branches of government understand you cannot roll over the
Constitution. The Constitution does not allow us to ignore the Supreme
Court's decisions on war. It does not allow us, in essence, to ignore
the responsibilities of Congress.
So I rise today to support this debate and to support the premise
that Congress must exercise its authority to declare war.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him on
his management of this extraordinarily important rule.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I listened to my friend
from Worcester. I was upstairs, and I want to express my appreciation
to him for his very sincere institutional commitment, his commitment to
our recognizing the preeminence of the first branch of government, and
the fact that we, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Boehner, all of us, Democrat
and Republican alike, recognize that the President of the United
States, under article 2 and article 1, has the responsibility, the
responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to, in fact, engage the United States
Congress.
Now, I think that a little clarification may need to be made at this
juncture because, as I listen to the debate there seems to be quite a
bit of confusion. People often talk about the ``War Powers Act.''
Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as the ``War Powers Act.'' There
was a War Powers Resolution that passed that does not have the power
and the strength of an enacted law.
{time} 0940
Similarly, Mr. Kucinich's resolution, which we will be considering
and this rule makes in order, is a measure that will not have the force
of law. Yes, it is true that it is an H. Con. Res, meaning that it will
be considered in the Senate as well, assuming it passes this House, but
it does not have the force of law. And no one, Mr. Speaker, should try
to make that claim.
Similarly, the H. Res. that Mr. Boehner has offered I personally
believe is more responsible because the notion of our calling for
withdrawal within 2 weeks is something that virtually everyone has said
cannot be done. That's why I believe that Mr. Boehner's resolution is a
more responsible one than the one offered by my good friend from Ohio.
But it, too, does not have the force of law.
So, as we proceed with this debate, I think it's very important for
us to recognize that the terms that are being used need to be used
correctly.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just, again, we want to make sure everybody has got the right
terminology correct and we are clarifying the Record. The H. Res. that
Mr. Boehner has introduced, that my friends on the Republican side are
touting as something substantial, gives the appearance of doing
something, when in reality it does nothing.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me just say that the characterization that my friend just made of
Mr. Boehner's resolution would also have to apply to the resolution
offered by our friend from Ohio. We're talking about resolutions here.
We're not talking about measures that have the power of law. This is
not an act. These are resolutions, which are statements being made by
this institution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I'm sorry that the gentleman has
such a low opinion of the War Powers Resolution, but I think it carries
more weight than he does.
But I would again say to my colleagues that what Mr. Boehner has
proposed here has all this tough language in it requiring the President
to do this, directing the President to do that, when, in fact, if we
pass this, the President is under the obligation to do nothing.
At this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, because the Constitution vests the
authority to declare war in the Congress, I oppose the administration's
decision to dispatch American troops into hostilities in Libya without
coming here first. I think that was an error. But because I take those
constitutional obligations very seriously and because each of us should
take them very seriously, I oppose this rule and the underlying
resolution from Speaker Boehner.
I find it ironic that, at a time when the institution is trying to
assert its rightful constitutional place, the Speaker has proposed a
resolution which is wholly ineffective and purely symbolic. This
resolution pursues a gravely important objective in a rather frivolous
and ineffective way.
If we believe that the conduct of a military operation is
inappropriate for the country, there are tools available to us under
the Constitution. Each one of those tools, whether it involves ceasing
appropriations or involves other types of remedies, requires the
consent of both the House and the Senate. To be effective, we must be
bicameral. And to be bicameral, we have to put a resolution on the
floor, the passage of which would lead to consideration by the Senate.
The Boehner resolution, by its own terms, does not do that.
So the question the Members ought to be asking themselves here,
whether they are for or against the incursion in Libya, whether they
think it should cease or continue, is: What is the effect of passing
the Boehner resolution?
As a practical and legal matter, the effect is nothing--nothing. All
of the items the President would be directed to do, any of the steps
the President would be prohibited from taking are meaningless if the
Boehner resolution passes because the Boehner resolution does not
contemplate being considered by the Senate.
So I would offer this to Members, that if they are looking for a
resolution that, in fact, has effect and meaning, Mr. Kucinich's
resolution has real effect and meaning because it is a due exercise of
the constitutional authority of the Congress.
The Speaker's resolution, which I take certainly in good faith, has
none of that effectiveness and none of that practical consequence. So I
would urge
[[Page H3994]]
a ``no'' vote on the rule precisely because of the principle of
congressional authority.
If you believe that we should exercise our constitutional authority,
then let's really exercise it. Let's put something before the body that
has real and practical meaning.
I would urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the left
continue to call House resolutions frivolous and meaningless. My good
friend Mr. McGovern himself just last term had House Resolution 278,
Global Securities Priorities Resolution.
The fact of the matter is the House needs to position itself so the
American people understand what this House is trying to convey to the
President of the United States. The fact of the matter is this
President continues to do things that, as a Senator, he said were
inconsistent with the Constitution. So we are making sure that this
House and the people who voted in this House are represented in the
public forum.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.
(Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about
our Constitution and the specific role that it grants this Congress.
My constituents back in the Third Congressional District of South
Carolina know that I carry a United States Constitution with me every
day, and the first time I spoke on this floor, it was to read a portion
of this great document. Specifically, I read the article that we're
talking about today, Article I, section 8, clause 11, the enumerated
power of Congress and of Congress, alone, to declare war.
Our Founders did not give that right to the executive branch. They
invested that responsibility with us. Now, previous Congresses have
delegated some of that responsibility with the War Powers Resolution.
That's what's being used by this President. But I think the time has
come for us to have the debate about the wisdom of that and the
constitutional obligation our Founders defined for Congress.
Over the past few years, our country has seen a renewed appreciation
for the Constitution, a recognition of the wisdom and divine guidance
our Founding Fathers had when they crafted this sacred document. The
Constitution lists our rights, these rights which were given us
directly by God, but also contains the mechanisms to protect our rights
from being trampled upon by man.
Among the most important of these protections is the separation of
powers. Seeing firsthand the tyranny that can arise from a corrupt
centralized power, our Founding Fathers sought to divide the power of
government into three independent branches that serve as checks on one
another.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress need to know: What is the national
interest at stake in Libya? The President cites humanitarian needs,
regional stability, and supporting the international community as his
justification. I do not believe that these reasons suffice as national
security interests. We did not go into Libya with a clear, attainable
objective. The risks and costs do not appear to be fully analyzed.
As the President said, we would only be in Libya for days, not
months. We've been there days. As a matter of fact, we've been there 73
days. Seventy-three days after we've gotten involved, we still don't
have that answer. We don't know who we're supporting. We don't know
whether we have a viable end game, and we don't have a congressional
declaration of war or an authorization of force.
And yet this President chooses to continue to risk American lives,
American servicemen and -women, and he continues to spend American
treasure at the whims of the United Nations. This President should not
be able to simply have wars of choice. He said this action in Libya
would be limited.
Our troops have, once again, as always, performed admirably and done
the job the President gave them to do. But we now have to do ours.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. Only Congress has the
power to declare war. If this Congress allows our President to make
wars of choice without the rule of law to guide him, we will be just as
guilty in not upholding our constitutional obligations.
{time} 0950
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague, Mr. Scott, talked about the fact that I have supported
House resolutions in the past and that, therefore, we should have more
respect for the document that Mr. Boehner has put together. I have no
problem with House resolutions. They state the views and the beliefs of
Members of the House of Representatives.
But what I have a problem with is anybody coming to the floor and
holding up the Boehner resolution and saying that it does something
that it does not. What the Boehner resolution simply does is it just
expresses the view of Congress. Even though it has pretty strong words
in it, it doesn't require the President to do anything. He doesn't have
to do anything if this thing passes.
The other thing I want to say, the distinguished chairman of the
Rules Committee came on the floor here and just kind of pooh-poohed the
War Powers Resolution as if it were just some other mere resolution.
Quite frankly, I am stunned by his characterization. It is astonishing
to me that he would come on the floor and say such a thing.
The fact of the matter is the War Powers Resolution is a joint
resolution of Congress, passed by the House and the Senate. It was
vetoed, and then it was overridden. It has the power of law. It is not
just a mere resolution. So let's not put this on the same level as what
the Speaker of the House has brought to this floor. It is two different
things.
What Mr. Kucinich does is he responds to the obligations that
Congress has under the War Powers Resolution. This is serious stuff.
This is important stuff. If we are going to get our terminology
straight, we ought to get it straight.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Courtney), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rushed, hyper-
partisan process that we are watching today on a very serious issue of
war resolution. It is absolutely a given that Congress has a role to
play in terms of the President's action that it should be scrutinized
and that we should have the opportunity to weigh in on it. Our Armed
Services Committee has been meeting on a regular basis, holding
administration officials' feet to the fire on those very questions. We
had a hearing yesterday.
The fact of the matter is, though, just because Congress has the
right to weigh in doesn't mean that we should pass a resolution for
resolution sake. The batting average of Congress in terms of rushed
resolutions, frankly, folks, is not very good. The Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution was rushed through the Congress, and we know now today that
historians have uncovered the fact that misinformation was presented to
the Congress. The Iraq War Resolution in 2002 was rushed through this
Congress with bad information.
And we are now seeing today language which was drafted literally
overnight being presented to the Members of this body and being asked
to weigh in in a deliberative fashion. This is a polemic we are voting
on. This is not a carefully balanced, bipartisan process which the
people of this country and the people who wear the uniform of this
country deserve.
If you read the statement of policy, it is devoid of any of the lead-
up to the President's decision which included a resolution by the Arab
League on March 12 to impose a no-fly zone; the U.N. Security Council
on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone; and on March 1, the United States
Senate voted unanimously, not 51 percent, not 81 percent, not 91
percent, 100 percent in support of a no-fly zone, a Republican and
Democratic bipartisan resolution calling on the President to do exactly
what he is doing today.
Now, again, there is no question, 70 days is a long time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. COURTNEY. It is longer than certainly it was originally presented
to
[[Page H3995]]
this Congress; but the fact of the matter is this resolution, which was
drafted in a partisan fashion, is so disappointing to the people who
care so profoundly about whether or not the decisions on war and peace
are actually going to be deliberated, debated, and voted on in a
serious fashion. We are left with this truncated process that is,
again, almost an insult to the people of this country.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, when you look at what we
are doing here today, the gentleman to the left got it wrong. The
bottom line is that Members of the House of Representatives have a
choice. They can do one of two or three things. They can vote for House
Resolution 292, or they can vote for Concurrent Resolution 51. They can
do both, or they can do neither.
The fact of the matter is, to trivialize or to belittle the process
we are undertaking on behalf of the American people ought to give us
cause to pause and ask ourselves: Who is playing the games?
We want the President of the United States to abide by the
Constitution. You've heard Democrats and Republicans agree this morning
on one clear fact: he didn't; and that's why we are here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say from the very beginning that Mr. McGovern
and I don't often agree on issues, but we do agree that this is a very
serious issue that we are dealing with today. And yesterday in the
Rules Committee, all of us dealt with this in a very serious way.
Mr. Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world. A major
part of what makes us so great is that we are a Nation of laws and not
of men, and our rule of law is based on God's laws and our
Constitution. Indeed, each one of us in Congress takes an oath to
uphold the Constitution when we take our office. The President and Vice
President, as well as members of the Cabinet, do the same thing.
We are here today to debate a rule and two resolutions related to the
inattention of the President to the Constitution; and I dare say that
none of us takes any joy in this, but we feel compelled by our
dedication to our founding document to do this because we love our
country. By doing all that we can to safeguard the constitutional
powers granted to Congress, we are doing our part to keep the United
States great and strong.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear about what is not at issue
today. This debate is not about our troops. We owe a huge debt of
gratitude to our men and women in the military and their families. The
troops do what they are sworn to do, what the law requires them to do:
obey the orders of the Commander in Chief. The troops are doing their
duty. By refusing to get congressional authorization for military
action in Libya, it appears that their Commander in Chief is not.
The Constitution was designed to be a check on the power of our
government, hence the term ``enumerated powers.'' Each of the three
branches has very limited powers with Congress having its own unique
role and powers, one of which, an important one of which, is the power
to declare war.
My focus this morning will be on the abrogation of the constitutional
and statutorial responsibility by the President in regard to his
actions on Libya. In other words, the authorization to use military
force is given to the President by this body and none other. And it is
in accordance with our Constitution that we are here asserting our
sworn constitutional duty and telling the President he does not have
the support nor the authority that he claims to have in order to
continue military operations in Libya.
I have often urged people to read Orwell's book ``1984'' because the
language used by President Obama in particular on the Libya issue to
muddy the waters is so reminiscent of the language used in that book
about a country where the government controls everything, including the
minds of the people, partly by the use of language that is completely
distorted.
Mr. Speaker, I have read the letter that President Obama sent to
Congress. He should have come in person to make his case, but even then
I doubt we would agree to continue operations in Libya. The letter that
the President sent does not even begin to comply with the requirements
of the War Powers Resolution. Let me read parts of it and enter the
entire letter into the Record, Mr. Speaker.
Here is how the letter begins: ``On March 21, I reported to the
Congress of the United States, pursuant to a request from the Arab
League and authorization by the United Nations Security Council, had
acted 2 days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by deploying
U.S. forces to protect the people of Libya from the Qadhafi regime. As
you know, over these last 2 months, the U.S. role in this operation to
enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 has become more limited,
yet remains important.''
Here is where I want to get into this convoluted language.
{time} 1000
Thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, I wish to express my
support for the bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators Kerry,
McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, and Lieberman, which would confirm
that the Congress supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both
branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations
of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government.
Mr. Speaker, this is doublespeak of the worst kind--a resolution
drafted, never introduced or passed, which would confirm that Congress
supports the U.S. mission. The President is dreaming when he talks
about this language.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate: This debate is not about our
troops; it's about our Constitution. Our men and women in uniform are
doing their duty by following orders. They make me and the rest of us
very proud. We are a blessed Nation to have such men and women in the
military.
This is about our oath to protect and defend the Constitution, about
the checks and balances our Founding Fathers had in mind when they
broke away from an imperial monarchy. I urge my colleagues to support
the rule.
Letter From President Obama
On March 21, I reported to the Congress that the United
States, pursuant to a request from the Arab League and
authorization by the United Nations Security Council, had
acted 2 days earlier to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe by
deploying U.S. forces to protect the people of Libya from the
Qaddafi regime. As you know, over these last 2 months, the
U.S. role in this operation to enforce U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1973 has become more limited, yet remains
important. Thus, pursuant to our ongoing consultations, I
wish to express my support for the bipartisan resolution
drafted by Senators Kerry, McCain, Levin, Feinstein, Graham,
and Lieberman, which would confirm that the Congress supports
the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united
in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the
Libyan people for political reform and self-government.
The initial phase of U.S. military involvement in Libya was
conducted under the command of the United States Africa
Command. By April 4, however, the United States had
transferred responsibility for the military operations in
Libya to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and
the U.S. involvement has assumed a supporting role in the
coalition's efforts. Since April 4, U.S. participation has
consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led
operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and
search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted
in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support
of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes
by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly
defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's
efforts.
While we are no longer in the lead, U.S. support for the
NATO-based coalition remains crucial to assuring the success
of international efforts to protect civilians from the
actions of the Qaddafi regime. I am grateful for the support
you and other Members in Congress have demonstrated for this
mission and for our brave service members, as well as your
strong condemnation of the Qaddafi regime. Congressional
action in support of the mission would underline the U.S.
commitment to this remarkable international effort. Such a
Resolution is also important in the context of our
constitutional framework, as it would demonstrate a unity of
purpose among the political branches on this important
national security matter. It
[[Page H3996]]
has always been my view that it is better to take military
action, even in limited actions such as this, with
Congressional engagement, consultation, and support.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for
her remarks, much of which I agree with--and I don't always agree with
her. I especially appreciate her emphasis on the importance of the War
Powers Resolution and how it applies here.
I again want to emphasize the importance of the War Powers Resolution
because I was really surprised by the way the distinguished chairman of
the Rules Committee kind of diminished what the War Powers Resolution
is all about. I want to read to you and read to my colleagues a section
from a briefing paper that the Congressional Research Service put
together. Let me just read this part here:
``Section 1 establishes the title `The War Powers Resolution.' The
law is frequently referred to as the `War Powers Act,' the title of the
measure passed by the Senate. Although the latter is not technically
correct, it does serve to emphasize that the War Powers Resolution
embodied in a joint resolution, which complies with constitutional
requirements for lawmaking, is a law.''
What I find puzzling is that we're all talking about the importance
of the War Powers Resolution, and my friends on the other side of the
aisle are saying, Well, that's why you need to support the Boehner H.
Res, which, again, does nothing. I mean we could do a press release,
and it would have the same impact that the resolution Mr. Boehner has
introduced would have on the President of the United States and,
unfortunately, on the President of the United States to do certain
things.
Again, I want to emphasize that there is a War Powers Resolution. It
is law. It is important that we understand that and understand we have
a role in that. What Mr. Kucinich is trying to do is to assert the
proper congressional role with regard to War Powers Resolution. What my
friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to do is, I guess,
either provide cover for Members so they don't have to vote for Mr.
Kucinich's resolution or to make a statement, but it doesn't really do
anything.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. 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 U.S. security interests and military
objectives in our engagement in Libya. I would go even further than
that to suggest that the President has been in violation of the law and
has set out specific responses from Congress.
But let's be clear: Congress must engage in a full, open and honest
debate about sending our brave men and women into harm's way, into
combat. We owe that to them, and we owe that to the American people.
The Founders intended such a debate when they granted Congress the
power to declare war.
The President's complete failure to consult with Congress and 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 cannot now sit idly by any longer as the
President refuses to abide by his constitutional and his legal
requirements. So, in conclusion, I believe that Congress must hold this
President accountable, and the Speaker's resolution is a first step in
that direction.
Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
Mr. NUGENT. I would like to thank my friend and Rules Committee
member, Mr. Scott, for the opportunity to speak in support of this
rule.
Mr. Speaker, we are already fighting a war on two fronts--Iraq and
Afghanistan. Our troops and resources are already spread very thin.
On March 19, the President announced that U.S. military forces had
joined with our NATO allies to commence operations in Libya. The
President did this not only without congressional authorization but
without even consulting Congress on the matter. For the first 10 days
of this operation, it was under U.S. command before shifting control of
all ongoing operations to NATO on March 30. To this day, the President
still hasn't come to Congress to ask for formal approval. When the
President first committed our military to operations in Libya, he said
we were talking about days, not months. Today, we are talking about
months, not days.
Mr. Speaker, President Obama has put us in a trick bag with our NATO
allies. He knew he was committing our military forces and assets to a
mission that would be unpopular, unjustifiable and unconstitutional.
So, in an attempt to avoid Congress and Article I of the U.S.
Constitution, President Obama transferred operations over to NATO.
Although we may not be in control of the mission, there is no doubt
that NATO could not move forward without U.S. assets. As my colleague
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will point out, 93 percent of the cruise
missiles, 66 percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships, and 50
percent of the planes are estimated to have cost this Nation over $700
million to date.
I will support our troops wherever the President sends them. However,
I cannot support President Obama's decision to commit our military
forces to operations without the constitutionally required
congressional authorization.
Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I can say this to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle: While I've been sitting here this morning, I haven't heard
anything from either side that 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, and I listened very carefully to him: With regard to
within 2 weeks pulling everything that we have in Libya out and coming
home, it would set 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. I don't know who was
advising him in regard to that, whether or not it was the Attorney
General, but it was an absolute mistake. 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 am not completely satisfied with the Boehner resolution, but I
think it does lay down a marker. It makes a statement. The Speaker was
very clear in speaking to us that this is not the end of this, that
this is the beginning. We have the ability to amend, if we need to, 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 chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services
Committees 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me say that this is not a partisan issue.
I hear a lot of partisan rhetoric, but it is not a partisan issue. This
is an issue about where we deploy troops, who has the authority to do
it and whether or not what the President has done is constitutional.
I will probably support both resolutions, but one of the concerns I
have about the Speaker's resolution is that
[[Page H3997]]
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.
Most of our wars that we fight now are fought from the air or from
battleships. We've had about 250 missiles fired in Libya, and about 226
of them are American. We've spent almost three-quarters of $1 billion
already, and it probably will go over $1 billion. ``Boots on the
ground'' says that we're not going to put troops into Libya, but we've
got ships offshore; we've got planes in the air; we've 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.
{time} 1010
This goes further than boots on the ground. 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 English, but not the American people. And it's
costing billions of dollars, or 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 says no boots on the ground. He could still attack
Syria, Assad there in Syria, with airplanes and missiles.
We must stop this President from making unilateral decisions that the
American people do not support and the Congress of the United States
does not support.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue, and I want to commend many
of my colleagues who have come to the 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
floor as one and spoken as one. That did not happen because politics
got in the way.
Anytime over the last several weeks, the Armed Services Committee or
the Foreign Affairs Committee could have reported out a resolution on
Libya. They didn't. Mr. Kucinich came to the House with his resolution.
It went through a process that would have compelled a vote. And all of
a sudden, the Republican leadership got nervous, and they came up with
the Boehner resolution in an attempt to undercut the Kucinich
resolution.
If you question whether or not politics had anything to do with it, I
would advise you to read the Politico piece that ran: ``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 Ohio Democrat who has been a driving force
against the administration's military action in Libya.''
Okay, I get it. But you know what? We could have come together, and
the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the
chairman and 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 a 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. If anybody thinks that passing this resolution is going to
compel the White House to do anything differently or provide us with
anything that they haven't already provided us with, they're gravely
mistaken. It doesn't force the President's administration to do
anything. It's a strong statement. I think it's written in a very
partisan way, unfortunately; but my friends 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
that there has to be a better way to do this. And 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 also, again, want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
for reminding us again of the importance of the War Powers Resolution.
It is not just some mere resolution. It is law. It is law. And the
reason why we are here today is because we believe that the War Powers
Resolution needs to be upheld and that Congress needs to assert its
proper role on this issue.
So 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 message, let's not send a press
release. Let's do something that resonates, that, once again, asserts
Congress's proper role in this debate.
We're involved in too many wars. We're going broke. We're losing too
many brave men and women in these conflicts. And in the case of Libya,
I, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, wonder what
the point is and what our mission is. It's not clear. That's one of the
reasons why Congress should be involved. That's one of the reasons why
there should be debate. We need to take this out of the realm of
partisanship and kind of return it back to where it belongs. This
should be a bipartisan issue here, and I regret that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle chose not to do that.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the Boehner
resolution. I will vote for the Kucinich resolution. I urge my
colleagues to vote their conscience on that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this rule lets the House
work its will, without any question. You have a choice. Take the
opportunity. Vote your conscience.
This is a place where we are confident and not nervous, but 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 an actual or imminent threat to the Nation.''
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, some have argued that under the War Powers
Resolution, a concurrent resolution has the force of law. That just is
not correct.
Under the Constitution, a law requires the signature of the
President. That is true for a declaration of war, for an appropriation,
establishment of weights and measures, or any other exercise of
legislative power under Article I of the Constitution. Without the
Signature of the President, or an override of his veto, it is not a law
and just does not bind the Executive.
The Supreme Court highlighted this particular point in its landmark
case INS v. Chadha which overturned the concept of the legislative
veto. The War Powers Resolution predates the Chadha decision, and most
constitutional scholars believe that decision creates a constitutional
infirmity for resolutions passed pursuant to its terms as they would
constitute a legislative veto.
So while both the Speaker's resolution and Mr. Kucinich's resolution
express the policy of the legislative branch, neither has the force of
law.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H3998]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 257,
nays 156, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 410]
YEAS--257
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holt
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--156
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Bass (NH)
Bishop (GA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Guthrie
Hinchey
Honda
Kaptur
Lofgren, Zoe
McCotter
Miller, George
Myrick
Neal
Price (GA)
Rush
Schwartz
Shuler
Visclosky
Young (AK)
{time} 1043
Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. NADLER, RANGEL, DOGGETT,
and BECERRA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. ALTMIRE and FRANK of Massachusetts changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 410, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
____________________